Indemnity Ordinance, 1975


Ordinance, 1975


Indemnity Ordinance was expressly made by the President in exercise of the
powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 93 of the Constitution. So, there was
no extra magic in the Indemnity Ordinance which in normal times was required to
be laid before the Parliament for its survival.

To give
approval to a law is a qualitatively different act from enacting the law
itself. An Ordinance when approved in the Constitution remains an Ordinance and
it does not become a part of the Constitution. [Per A.T.M. Afzal, C.J]

Shahriar Rashid Khan Vs Bangladesh and others, 18 BLD (AD) 155.


Para 3A and 18 of the Fourth Schedule

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 15th 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.