In the present case the Repeal Act, 1996 repealed the Indemnity Ordinance, 1975 prospectively (“এতদ্বারা রহিত করা হইল”). It means it was an existing law till the 13th November, 1996. When a statute is repealed by the Parliament its disappearance from the statute-book takes place from the date of repeal, either prospectively or retrospectively according as the legislature prescribes. But if as statute is declared void ab initio by the Court its disappearance from the statute- book takes place retrospectively from the date of enactment of the repealed statute, never prospectively. If a statute is declared void ab initio
by a Court no rights accrue at all. No obligation or liability generates from the void law. But a repealed statute retains accrued rights and obligations, unless avoided specifically or by necessary implication. In the present case no Court of law has earlier pronounced that the Indemnity Ordinance, 1975 is void ab initio. The Parliament was therefore free to pass a declaratory statute declaring that the said Ordinance was void from the very beginning; but it did not do so, It preferred to treat the said Ordinance as an existing law and repealed it. The High Court Division made a basic mistake in holding that the Parliament has legally repealed a void law, little giving thought that a void law has to be declared void by a declaratory statute and a repeal can only be made of an existing law in case of repeal the Repeal Act is itself liable to be repealed by the same Parliament or subsequent Parliament, reviving the Indemnity Ordinance, 1975; but when a Court declares the Indemnity Ordinance, 1975
void ab initio the Parliament cannot reenact the same legislation afresh. It will be struck down as unconstitutional. It is buried forever. This distinction was lost sight of by the High Court Division.
Shahriar Rashid Khan Vs. Bangladesh. &. Ors. 7BLT (AD)-186.