Constitution
(Seventh Amend Ment) Act, 1986
FOURTH
SCHEDULE
Paragraph 18
of the Fourth Schedule
The
constitutional issues posed before us were two:
(1) Whether the
Indemnity Ordinance, 1975 was made a part of the Constitution by. virtue of
paragraph 18 of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, and
(2)whether the repeal of the
Ordinance by the Indemnity (Repeal) Act, 1996 passed by less than two thirds
majority was violative of Article 142 of the Constitution. His Lordship
concurred with the judgment delivered by the learned Chief Justice without
consideration of the validity of paragraph 18 of the Fourth Schedule of the
Constitution which was not agitated before the Court. [Per B.B. Roy Choudhury,
J.]
Shahriar
Rashid Khan Vs Bangladesh and others, 18 BLD (AD) 155.
Ref:
CRAIES on Statute Law (Seventh Edition) at P. 351; Dosso’s case 11 DLR (SC)1;
Halima Khatun, 30 DLR (AD) 107; Haji Joynal Abedin, 32 DLR (AD) 110;
Eheteshamuddin Iqbal, 33 DLR (AD) 154; Inquiry into legislative motives,
Cooley’s ‘A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations’, at page 186; BLACK’s
Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) at P. 1167; 692; Cooley’s ‘A Treatise on the
Constitutional Limitations’ (Eighth Edition), Volume 1 P. 247; A.V. Dicey ‘The
law of the Constitution’, 10th Edition Page 233; K. Nagraj Vs. State of A.P.,
A.I.R. 1985 (SC)55 1; G.C. A.I.R. 1995(SC) 1655—Cited.
Paragraph 3A
and 18 of the Fourth Schedule
The
Indemnity Ordinance was promulgated to restrict the taking of any legal or
other proceedings in respect of certain “acts and things done” prior to the
promulgation of the Ordinance. The protection which was been given under
paragraphs 3A and 18 to the “acts and things done” relate to those that were
done in exercise of the powers derived or purported to have been derived from
the Martial Law Proclamation. They have been ratified and confirmed and are
declared to have been validly made, done or taken and shall not be called in
question before any Court, Tribunal or authority on any ground whatsoever.
Evidently, the acts and things which were done on the August, 1975 to which
indemnity was sought to be given by’ the Indemnity Ordinance were not done in
exercise of the powers derived from the said Ordinance. Therefore, they have no
nexus with the “acts and things done” referred to in paragraphs 3A and 18. [Per
A.T.M. Afzal, C.J.]
Shahriar
Rashid Khan Vs Bangladesh and others, 18 BLD (AD) 155.
Paragraph 3A
and 18 of the Fourth Schedule
The
object of paragraphs 3A and 18 is to maintain the constitutional continuity of
those laws after the revival of the Constitution till they are repealed,
altered or amended by the competent authority. If paragraphs 3A and 18 were not
incorporated in the Constitution then there would be utter confusion in the
field of constitutional dispensation and law. There would be discontinuity of constitutional
dispensation and the period in issue would remain outside the Constitution.
Martial Law having ceased, the operation of ordinary civil law continued. [Per
Latifur Rahman, J]
Shahriar
Rashid Khan Vs Bangladesh and others, 18 BLD(AD)156 Para—19(2)
M.L.O. 9 of
1982
The
jurisdiction of the High Court Division to examine the validity or otherwise of
an order passed under MLO 9 of 1982 has been ousted in view of paragraph 19(2)
of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution as enacted by the Constitution
(Seventh Amendment) Act, 1986 and as such where an order passed under MLO 9 of
1982 the person affected thereby having had filed review petition before the
competent authority has a right to get review of his grievance and if during
pendency of the review petition Martial Law was withdrawn even then he is
entitled to have the review petition decided by a forum to be created for
disposing of the application for review.
Lutfor
Rahman Vs. Divisional Mechanical Engineer and others, 19 BLD (HCD) 393.
Ref:
42DLR1—relied upon.
Paragraph 19
of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, Constitution (Seventh Amendment)
Act, 1986
The
object of paragraphs 3A and 18 is to maintain the Constitutional continuity of
those law after the revival of the Constitution till they are repealed, altered
or amended by the competent authority. If paragraphs 3A and 18 were not
incorporated in the Constitution then there would be utter confusion in the
field of constitutional dispensation and Law, There would be discontinuity of
constituaual dispensation and the period in issue would remain outside the
constitution. Martial Law having ceased, the operation of ordinary civil law
continued. The Parliament is the supreme law making authority and the
Parliament exercising its plenary power can alter, amend or repeal the law
validated and protected under paragraph 19, which has been added in the Fourth
Schedule of the Constitution. (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1986.
A Y B I
Siddiqui Vs. Bangladesh, 21 BLD (HCD) 75.
Ref:
Shahriar Rashid Khan Vs. Bangladesh and ors, 18 BLD (1998) (AD) 155.
Rules of
Procedure of Parliament Rule 5(3)
If
the outgoing speaker is re-elected he shall make and subscribe oath first
before he administers oath to the members.
Md. Faziur
Rahman v. Md. Abdul Hamid Advocate and others, 22 BLD (HCD) 631.
Rule 178(3)
The
Rule does not empower the speaker to decide whether a member has vacated a seat
or not.
Md
Fazlur Rahman v. Md. Abdul Hamid Advocate and others, 22 BLD (HCD) 631.