CONSTITUTION OF BANGLADESH, 1972

 Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 33(4)—
This decision deals with the implication of sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Special Powers Act read with Article 33(4) of the Constitution regarding the placing of the case of the detenu within the statutory period of 120 days (as per section 10) before the Advisory Board, sending of the report of the Advisory Board containing its opinion to the Government within 170 days as per section 11 and the legal necessity of the Government to confirm or revoke the order of detention (and in case of confirmation pass further order for continuation of detention serving the same on the detenu) which in effect means that continuation of an order of detention for indefinite period, even if initially otherwise valid, becomes illegal either on 120th day due to contravention of section 10, or, on 170th day due to the contravention of the provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Special Powers Act or on 180th day if the provision of section 12 of the said Act road with An 33(4) of the Constitution is not complied with.
Md. Mansur Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs 42 DLR 272.Article 33 (4)—
Government cannot detain a person beyond 6 months as the Advisory Board did not submit its opinion within that period. Detention is illegal being also in contravention of Article 33(4) of the Constitution.
It is clear from the provision of Article 33 (4) of the Constitution that if the Advisory Board does not report within six months that there is, in its opinion, cause for such detention of the detenu concerned the Government cannot detain the detenu beyond six months. Undoubtedly the detenu was never placed before the Advisory Board within six months from his detention on 8.1.88. Therefore, the order of detention Annexure—F dated 23.5.88 is illegal. We are of the view that the detention of the detenu is illegal, without any lawful authority and does not come within the scope of the Special Powers Act and is in contravention of Article 33(4) of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
Monowara Begum Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs 41 DLR 35.

Article 33(5)—
Preventive detention—Detaining authority must keep in view Article 33(5) of the Constitution—Grounds to be communicated at the earliest to the detenu regarding the order of detention.
The detaining authority must always keep in view Article 33(5) of the Constitution which provides that the authority making the order for preventive detention shall, as soon as may be, communicate to the detained person the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and the Legislature in section 8(2) of Special Powers Act has taken pains to specifically direct the detaining authority to cause service of the order containing the detailed grounds of detention at the time of detention, that is, at the very moment he is detained under the order of preventive detention.
Dr. Md. Habibullah Vs. Secretary Ministry, of Home Affairs 41 DLR 160.

Article 33(5)—
Grounds in the initial order of detention cannot be substituted for separate grounds to be communicated to the detenu.
Chunnu Chowdhury Vs. District Magistrate 41 DLR 156.

Article 35—
Double Jeopardy—The accused is going to be prosecuted in respect of an  offence which did not occur during the earlier transaction nor the present case arose out of the same fact and for the present offence he was not tried previously. In such a position the doctrine of the Constitution or of the Code as to double jeopardy is not applicable in the present case.
HM Ershad Vs. State 45 DLR 534.

Article 35(5)—
In case of malafide the matter of non disclosure will be justifiable one but for  the clear constitutional sanction a non—disclosure of fact that was considered to the prejudice of the detenu ought to be regarded as a violation of basic principle of natural justice.
The detenu cannot also ask as a matter of right to the detaining authority the facts not disclosed on the plea of public interest. This is the privilege of the State and this privilege the Slate can always claim against the detenu, Further, when the liberty of a citizen is a1 snake and when constitutional protection is sought for, it is the Court alone which can very well look into all the materials including the materials to which privilege is claimed by the detaining authority. If, in fact, a privilege is claimed in respect of any material, it is the High Court Division alone that would finally decide as to whether the document is really a privileged one or not. Under proviso to Article 33 (5) of the Constitution, the authority has got a constitutional protection not to disclose anything in public interest and it is the constitutional court alone which can look into the materials pertaining to the detention of the detenu as contemplated in the Constitution for its satisfaction alone. The privilege is given to the State in the interest of the State. People or community cannot be asked for as a mailer of right.
Habiba Mahmud Vs. Bangladesh 45 DLR (AD) 89.

Article 39—
Contempt— Limits of the press — Freedom of the press is recognized in our constitution—a court is to suffer criticism made against it only in the exceptional cases of bad faith or ill motive it will resort to law of contempt.
Saleem Ullah Vs State 44 DLR (AD) 309.

Article 40—
Right to profession— The impugned restriction on the petitioner’s right to be enlisted as a contractor may be bonafide and in the interest of the board, but when it interferes with his fundamental right to profession, the restriction cannot be allowed to exist unless authorized by law.
Abdul Jalil Vs. Chairman, REB 45 DLR 24.

Article 41—
Right to profess religion— The right of the Ahmadiyya community to preach their religious beliefs is subject to law, public order and morality. The book having contained matters which are deliberately and maliciously intended to outrage the religious beliefs of the bulk of the Muslims, the Government was justified in forfeiting the book.
Bangladesh Anjuman-e-Ahmadiyya Vs. Bangladesh 45 DLR 185.

Article 56(3)—
For a detention order made by the District Magistrate on being satisfied about the prejudicial act by any person and the extension of such order by the Government under section 3 of the Special Powers Act, there is no requirement of law to place it before the President for his approval, and consequently there is no obligation nor scope to pass order by noting it as “by order of the President” and this being a purely executive order the provision of Article 56(3) of the Constitution is not applicable to this case.
Sekandar Ali Vs. Bangladesh 42 DLR 346.

Article 102—
A litigant has no inherent right in procedural remedy. Since the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has observed in 35 DLI? (AD) 127 that there is no scope for second revision the matter ends there. That does not mean that of necessity a writ jurisdiction may be invoked.
Haji Golam Hossain Vs. Abdur Rahman Munshi 40 DLR (AD) 196.

Article 102—
In certiorari the Court can declare that the conviction of the accused was recorded without lawful authority—if the accused’s trial is vitiated by irregularities in procedure causing him prejudice, the proceedings can be quashed.
State Vs. Zahir and ors. 45 DLR (AD) 163.

Article 102—
A writ petition does not lie against the decision of the Sessions Judge under section 439A CrPC. A litigant has no inherent right in procedural remedy. Appeal or revision must be given expressly by law. A writ jurisdiction cannot of necessity be invoked.
Haji Golam Hossain Vs. Abdur Rahinan Munshi 40 DLR (AD) 196.

Article 102—
Forfeiture of book—Defect in the order is no ground for exercise of writ jurisdiction—For enforcement of fundamental right and for cancellation of order, the Court should look to the equity and good conscience in passing the impugned order (forfeiting the book in question). When the book contains materials justifying the government’s action, the impugned order cannot be struck down on the ground that it does not mention the facts in support of the action.
Bangladesh Anjumane-e-Ahmadiyya Vs. Bangladesh 45 DLR 185.

Article 102—
The right to hear is a personal right—the writ petitioner being not the author or publisher of the forfeited book is not entitled to prior notice asking him to show cause against the impugned order.
Bangladesh Anjuman-e-Ahmadiyya Vs. Bangladesh 45 DLR 185.

Article 102—
The Court is to hold the balance between the State’s need to prevent prejudicial activities and citizen’s right to enjoy his personal liberty.
Habiba Mahmud Vs. Bangladesh 45 DLR (AD) 89.

Article 102—
When court examines a confidential file relating to a detenu it should indicate, without disclosing the materials, that there are facts in the confidential file that are relatable to the ground of detention.
Habiba Mahmud Vs. Bangladesh 45 DLR (AD) 89.

Article 102(2)(a)(i)—
read with section 439A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)—The Sessions Judge having reversed the finding of possession made in favour of the appellant by the Magistrate, the appellant cannot file writ petition in the nature of mandamus under Article 102(a)(i) of the Constitution.
Haji Golam Hossain Vs. Abdur Rahman Munshi 40 DLR (AD) 196.

Article 102(2)(b)(i)—
While detaining a person the Government must serve specific grounds for detention so as to enable him to know what are his faults and illegalities. Detention on grounds vague and indefinite without giving sufficient materials to enable the detenu to make effective representation is illegal.
Md. Sekandar Ali Vs. Bangladesh 42 DLR 346.

Article 102(2)(1)—
The High Court Division clearly proceeded on a misapprehension of the nature of an application under Article 102(2)(1) of the Constitution.
Sajeda Parvin Vs. Government of Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.

Article 102(2)(1)—
The Dhaka High Court and after 1972 the High Court of this country have consistently held that where the petitioner has challenged his detention as illegal and the detention is continued by successive orders and the detaining authority fails to show that any of the successive orders of detention is illegal, the rule does not become infructuous.
Sajeda Parvin Vs. Government of Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.

Article 102(2) (1)—
The fact of detention and not the date of order of the detention is the material point.
Sajeda Parvin Vs. Government of Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.

Article 102(2)(b)(1)—
High Court Division which took the view “This rule therefore has become infructuous after revocation of the impugned (original) order and the detenu is in detention not under the said order but under the subsequent order which is not the subject— matter of the present rule” missed the tenor of Article 102(2)(b)(l) which confers jurisdiction on it to “satisfy itself that he is not being held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner”
Sajeda Parvin Vs. Government of Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.

Article 102(2)(b)(i)—
Writ of Habeas Corpus—Nature of enquiry—HC Division’s view erroneous—Considering the nature of enquiry as it is, there is no hesitation in saying that the High Court Division has erroneously taken the view that the Rule (issued by it) has become infructuous as because fresh order had been passed which was not, speaking technically, a subject—matter of the Rule. To say the least, the view that was taken in the case of Abdul Latif Mirza 31 DLR (AD) 1 was overlooked.
Sajeda Parvin Vs. Government of Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.

Article 102(2)(b)(i)—
in 31 DLR (AD) 1, it was held that the order of detention for its validity is to be tested on the basis whether the detaining authority had before it material which gave a rational probative value of the order and are not extraneous to the purpose of the Act and beyond which the order of detention is immune from challenge except on the ground of malafide.
Sajeda Parvin Vs. Government of Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.

Article 102(2)(b)(i)—
Malafide vitiates everything and the point is so settled that it needs no reiteration by referring to the decided case [Ref: 34 DLR (AD) 222]
Sajeda Parvin Vs. Government of Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.

Article 102(2)(b)(i)—
Order of detention was passed for collateral purposes. Hence the detention is illegal.
Sajeda Parvin Vs. Government of Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.

Article 103—
Where serious defect in the finding of fact given by the High Court Division is discovered and the same are considered not tenable then it should be open to the Appellate Division to come to its own) independent finding upon a re-examination or the evidence untrammeled by the opinion of the Court appealed from.
State Vs. Abdus Sattar 43 DLR (AD) 44.

Article 103—
State filed a leave petition against the order of acquittal by the High Court Division which was dismissed after hearing—Subsequently the informant filed another leave petition. There is no scope for hearing the second petition at the instance of the informant.
Mostoshir Ali Vs. Arman Ali 42 DLR (AD) 12.

Article 104—
Reduction of sentence—The respondent suffered much during these long years and any direction to suffer further imprisonment will only add to his misery of which he has had enough. The order of the High Court Division acquitting him though set aside and that of the Conviction by the Special Judge under section 409 Penal Code is restored, the sentence of his imprisonment is therefore reduced to the period already undergone by him.
State Vs. Abdul Muttaleb Khan 45 DLR (AD) 131.

Article 112—
Where specific criminal charge has been levelled and specific criminal case is pending, the executive authority should not take recourse to preventive detention— Executive authority is to act in aid of the Supreme Court as a solemn constitutional obligation.
AKM Azizul Hoque Vs. Bangladesh 42DLR 189.

Article 148—
Secretaries of the Government are directed to submit reports as to the steps taken pursuant to directions of the Court as to enforcement of laws involving juvenile accused.
State Vs. Deputy Commissioner Satkhira 45 DLR 643.

Article 226—
The Indian judicial view is completely different from that of Bangladesh judicial view on the matter. It is the approach of subjective satisfaction that is being made in the preventive detention cases. It will be a dangerous slip to go into those decisions.
Sajeda Parvin Vs. Government of Bangladesh 40 DLR (AD) 178.