& 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

Proclamation of emergency challenged

Writ petition filed with HC

Staff Correspondent
A writ petition has been filed with the High Court (HC) challenging the legality of the president's proclamation of the state of emergency in the country’ on January’ 11 last year.
Two Emergency Power Orders (No 1 and 2), Emergency Power Ordinance (EPO) 2007 and Emergency Power Rules (EPR) 2007, issued through the proclamation of the state of emergency suspending the fundamental rights of the citizens and barring them from seeking bail from court in some cases, were also challenged in the same petition.
Four Supreme Court (SO lawyers, M Saleem Ullah, Muhammad Mohsen Rashid, Nahid Sultana Juthi and Md Abdul Mannan Khan jointly filed the writ petition as public interest litigation (PIL) seeking issuance of a rule upon the government to explain why the proclamation of the state of emergency and die ordinance, rules and orders concerned should not be declared illegal and unconstitutional.
The HC bench of Justice Khademul Islam Chowdhury and Justice Mashuquc Hosain Ahmed yesterday heard part of the petition and adjourned the hearing. They fixed today for next hearing of the petition.
The law secretary, establishment secretary and home secretary have been made respondents in die petition.
It was stated in the writ petition that the president declared emergency in the country on January 11 last year with a maJafide intention and collateral purpose to extend his rule beyond 90 days while holding the office as de facto chief adviser purportedly under Article 141 A (1) of the constitution expressing his "satisfaction" that a "grave emergency exists" in which the "security and economic life of Bangladesh is threatened by internal disturbance."
It also said the state of emergency was promulgated on January 11, 2007, without lawful authority, as the president had no constitutional authority to promulgate emergency.
"The precondition prescribed in claused) of Article 141 of the constitution that a grave emergency exists in wliich the security and economic life of Bangladesh is threatened by internal disturbance has been totally absent," itsaid.
"The blanket suspension of the fundamental rights without specification thereof is in direct conflict with Article 141C of the constitution and the fundamental rights so suspended have no nexus with the “objects'’ of the proclamation of emergency and is also in direct conflict with the "dominant objects" of the caretaker government to hold free, fair and credible national elections under the mandate of the constitution," the petition said.
Advocate MI Farooqui and advocate Ruhul Quddus Babu moved for the petitioners, while assistant attorney general (AAG) Mahfuza Begum Neela stood for the government.