& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Indemnity (Repeal) Act a valid law, declares HC

By Staff Correspondent
The High Court, in a landmark Judgment yesterday, upheld the Indemnity (Repeal). Act. 1996. passed by Parliament in November 12 last year, as a valid law.
After 13 days of hearing, in which a Division Bench of the High Court sought opinions from six senior lawyers. Justice Mohammad Mozammel Hoque and Justice Abdul Matin gave their verdict before a packed court, pronouncing the Indemnity Ordinance No. 50 of 1975. "void since it is repugnant to the Constitution,"
Lawyers, journalists and people from other professions thronged the court to hear the judgment which took nearly two hours to be delivered amid hushed silence.
Extra police force was de-
By Staff Correspondent
ployed around the High Court building to maintain law and
Complex constitutional issues came up during the hearing as two writs were filed on December 1 last year on behalf of two persons accused in the Bangabandhu murder case, seeking immunity under the nulled ordinance.
The Division Bench, discharging the rules issued earlier upon petitions on behalf of the two accused, permitted their counsel to appeal against the judgment.
The petitions were filed by Mahmuda Rahman, mother of Col. (retd) Syed Faruqur Rahman and Col. (retd) Shahriar Rashid Khan, praying for declaring the Bangabandhu murder case filed with Dhan-
mondi police station and the jail killing case filed with Lal-bagh thana, in the city, illegal under the Indemnity Ordinance of 1975. which was incorporated in the Constitution through the Fifth Amendment.
Pending the appeal, the verdict paved the way for trial of the accused in the Bangabandhu murder case and the jail killing case.
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mu-jibur Rahman and his family members were killed on August 15. 1975 at their Dhanmondi residence. Four national leaders — Tafuddin Ahmed. Syed Nazrul Islam. Mansur Ali and Kamruzzaman were killed inside the Dhaka Central Jail on Novembers. 1975.
Barrister Korban Ali. counsel for the two accused, was
granted the certificate for appeal.
Attdrney General KS Nabi, however, opposed the petition for appeal.
Granting the certificate for appeal, the court observed, "since several questions of law as to the interpretation of several provisions of the Constitution are involved in the instant cases, the certificate prayed for is granted."
The Indemnity Ordinance was proclaimed on August 27, 1975 by the then government headed by Khandaker Mush-taque Ahmed, validating all actions taken during the August 15 killings of Bangabandhu and his family, indemnifying the killers from all legal proceedings. In September last year, a six-member committee was formed by the government to examine the Indemnity Ordinance of 1975 and prepare a bill for its repeal.
The committee headed by Aminullah. secretary. Ministry of Law and Justice, also included Mustafizur Rahman. Abul Basljar Bhuiyan, joint secretaries, Ministry of Law and Justice, . ; ..Lal Awal, secretary. La Ik-
teder Ahmed. .. vial
Administration ..^n...g institute and Anwarul Huq. deputy secretary of the law ministry.
The committee submitted the bill to the ministry of law which was later plated before parliament, the Jatiya Sangsad passed the Indemnity (Repeal) bill. 1996 on November 12 last year by a simple majority.
UNB- adds: Earlier the High Court, had issued rule upon the writ petition on December 2 directing the government as to why the Indemnity (Repeal) Act '96 should not be declared illegal and ultra uires of the Constitution.
The court had appointed six noted constitutional experts as amicus curiae — Barrister Syed Istiaq Ahmed. Dr Kamal Hos-
sain. Barrister Rafiqul Huq. Khandaker Mahabubuddin Ahmed. Barrister Amirul Islam and M Nurullah.
Of the six Jurists who assisted the court in reaching a decision on this crucial constitutional dispute, five said that the Indemnity (Repeal) Act '96 was a valid piece of legislation and the Indemnity Ordinance '7b was void being ultra viers of the Constitution.
They contended that the repealed ordinance was never a part of the Constitution.
Khandker Mahbubuddin Ahmed was the lone, jurist who supported the contention of the writ petition and argued that the impugned Indemnity Ordinance *75 was part of the Constitution and can't be repealed or altered by a simple majority.
The Indemnity Ordinance "73 was a bad law and against humanity. Ahmed observed but viewed that the vote of two-thirds majority Is required to repeal the ordinance in parliament.
The court in its Judgment said. "We have accepted the views of the majority. In the result. both the rules Issued In these Iwo writ petitions are discharged."