The aiHliorily of (lie EIrvlion Commission (EC) to fix a retrospective date for determining the eligibility of a voter was challenged yesterday by the lawyer lor a petitioner who filed a writ in the High Court against certain provisions of the on-going voters' registration. reports UNB.

Resuming the hearing, petl tioner's lawyer ABM Nurul Islam. citing the Constitution, told the court "the law does not give any authority to the EC to give retrospective effect to the qualifying date." Rather the Constitution says a person would be eligible to become a voter as soon as he or she attains the age of 18.

If the retrospective date takes effect for the registration of voters, then some 25 lakh people would not be able to enrol themselves as voters during the current registration. Advocate Islam submitted.

Referring to the Presidential Order 104 of 1972 and Electoral Collage Act of 1964, the lawyer lor Aminul Gani, the petitioner. said the qualifying date to become a voter on those two occasions had been fixed prospective. But this time, he pointed out. the Election Commission has fixed a retrospective date, that is January I. 1995.

Registration of voters began from May 25 and the final list of voters will lie published by the EC on August 31. During this period, he maintained, some 25 lakh people will have qualified as voters.

Attorney General Aminul Huq. placing his arguments, said there was no illegality in fixing a date because some date was required to b< h.vd

for the work to start Citing Indian and Pakistani laws the chief government counsel contended that similar provisions were also found in those countries

Replying to a query from the bench Advocate Aminul Huq however said that If a person reaches the age of 18 by August 31 the Commission would allow him/her to register as a voter

"The qualifying date is not stationary but a moving phenomenon. he said.

Presiding judge Justice Ismail Uddin Sarkar, however contradicted this stand and asked the Attorney General to submit an affidavit on behalf of the Election Commission to morrow.

Examining a copy of the voter registration form. Justice Sarkar said, "this form Is for all time. The date January 1 has been mentioned In the form, so there remains no scope for correction,"

K S Nabi. Bar at Law. earlier. arguing on behalf of the petitioner, said the Ordinance No 61 of 1982. which had fixed the first day of the year as the qualifying date was ultra vires to the Constitution. The qualifying date Is contrary to the provision of the Ordinance, he added.

The writ was filed on May 29 by Advocate Aminul Gani challenging the legality of the fixation of the date January 1. 1995 as the cut-off mark for becoming eligible as a voter as well as the stipulation regarding the place of registration of a particular person as a voter

The two-member bench comprises Justice Ismail Uddin Sarkar and Justice Abu Sayed Ahmed.