Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order, 1972

 

 

Article-3

[Prof. Golam Azam, the Jamaat leader, hereinafter called the respondent, left for Pakistan on 22 November, 1971 but he could not turn back because of the War of Liberation, 1971. Whether Government notification dated April 18, 1973 declaring Prof. Golam Azam disqualified to be the citizen of Bangladesh under Article 3 of the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provision) Order, 1972 was of any legal effect and whether the show cause notice dated March 23, 1992 served on him as reference has any lawful authority. The answer is ‘No’]

To meet the requirements of the new situation that emerged out of independence of Bangladesh P.O. 149 of 1972 was brought into existence on 15 December, 1972. one day before the commencement of the Constitution so that It might get the constitutional protection of an existing law. It has undergone several amendments. At present, law of citizenship is governed by two legislations the Citizenship Act, 1951 continued as an existing law and the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order, 1972 (P.O. 149 of 1972) which came into force on 15 December, 1972, but It was given effect from 26 March, 1971. [Para-9]

Bangladesh Vs. Prof. Golam Azam & Ors. 3 BLT (AD)-3.

BANGLADESH CITIZENSHIP (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ORDER, 1972

 

BANGLADESH CITIZENSHIP (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS)
ORDER (P.O. 149 OF 1972)


Article—2

Citizenship—The
respondent was born in the territory now comprised in Bangladesh but l
temporary absence is covered by the proviso of P.O. 149 of 1972 and the law
says, “he shall be deemed to continue to be resident in Bangladesh,
notwithstanding his temporary residence in a country which was at war or aged
in military operations against Bangladesh.”—His assertion that he was prevented
from returning to Bangladesh by the circumstances which had not been
challenged—In the eye of law, therefore, he remains a resident of Bangladesh.

People’s
Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Haque; 2 BLD (AD) 143.

 

Citizenship
and nationality

Citizenship
is distinct from nationality— Citizenship is a creature solely of domestic
Law—It refers to right which a state sees fit to counter upon certain
individuals who are also nationals-citizens are those persons who1ae full
political rights as distinguished fromuaiona1s who may not enjoy political
rights still domiciled in that country.

Government
of Bangladesh Vs. Mirza Skakab Ispahani, 8 BLD (AD) 41.

Ref.
A.I.R l963 (SC) 1819.

 

Article—2(ii)

Article
2(u) of P.O. 149 of 1972 provided that notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law, on the commencement of this Order, every person shall be deemed
to be a citizen of Bangladesh who was a permanent resident of the territories
now comprised in Bangladesh on the 25th day of March, 1971, and continues to be
so resident and is not otherwise disqualified from being a citizen by or under
any law for the time being inforce— P.O. No. 149 of 1972 was made respectively
operative from 26.3.71.

Mirza Shahab
Ispahani Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh; 8 BLD (HD) 173.

 

Bangladesh Citizenship Temporary Provisions Order 1972

 

Bangladesh
Citizenship Temporary Provisions Order 1972 (P.O. 149 Of 1972)

 

Articles—2,
2A and 2B

Citizenship
by birth is a complete legal right and a vested constitutional right which
cannot be taken away or denied or lost to a particular person for his temporary
absence from Bangladesh or for his residence in any other country for a
considerable number of years, unless and until it is found that the particular
citizen of Bangladesh abandons or renounces his citizenship of Bangladesh and
acquires the citizenship of another country.

Annanda
Prosad Das v. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others, 22 BLD (HCD) 81.

Ref: Mirja
Shaheb Ispahani v. Bangladesh 40 DLR(AD)116; Bangladesh v. Prof. Golam Azam 46
DLR(AD)192; Abeda Khatun and another v. State of U.P. and others AIR 193
(Allahabad) 260; Md. Ayub Khan v. Commissioner of Police. Madras A1R1965 (SC)
1623; Izhar Ahmed v. Union of India AIR 1962(SC) 1052; People’ Republic of
Bangladesh v. Abdul Hoque, 1982 BCR (AD) 143.

 

Article—2B

This
law initially did not provide for acquisition of dual citizenship by a citizen
of Bangladesh until Article 2B was incorporated’ by way of amendment to the P0
149 of 1972 on 11.2.1978. But the Constitution of the People’s Republic of
Bangladesh was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on November, 1972 and came
into force on the 16Lh December 1972 with the disqualification clause under
reference as it is. No necessity of constitutional amendment in respect of
Article 66(2) (c) of the Constitution was ever felt in keeping with the spirit
of Article 2B of the P0 149 of 1972.

Md Abdul
Halim Vs the Speaker of Bangladesh Parliament and others, 21 BLD (HCD) 391.

 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.