A High Court bench yesterday said the Speaker of the Jatiya Sangsad had provoked people against the apex court and the government by

making comments on its directive on Supreme Court land and the act amounted to sedition.

The Speaker is completely

ignorant about the SC and the constitution, said the bench of Justice AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury Manik and Justice Jahangir Hossain Selim.

Speaker Abdul Hamid on May 29 told the House that the courts were neutral and independent, but it looked odd when they took quick decisions to solve their own problems while people had to wait years for justice.

The remarks came in relation to an HC order that the Supreme Court be handed over its land, currently under the control of the Roads and Highways Department.

If people were aggrieved at court verdicts, the day would come when they would stand against the courts, Hamid said following a statement by Awami League lawmaker Shahriar Alam.

“Likewise, if the government becomes autocratic, people will resist it and there are numerous instances of such.”

Yesterday afternoon, reporters approached the Speaker at his office about his comment, but he declined to make any.

The HC said it was a pity that the Speaker, the third individual as per Warrant of Precedence, had lost the dignity symbolic of his post by taking part in a debate in parliament on a matter that was sub-judice.

Also the dignity of the Supreme Court had been damaged and the nation harmed, the court said while hearing a contempt of court rule yesterday.

The observations came after Manzill Murshid, counsel for Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh, the contempt of court petitioner, placed newspaper reports on the comments of the Speaker and the MP

The bench had issued the contempt of court rule in February upon some government officials, including the communications secretary, for not giving back the piece of land to the Supreme Court.

On May 14, during a hearing on the rule, the HC bench directed officials concerned to vacate by yesterday some rooms of the RHD buildings built on the land.

Manzill Murshid, reading

out the reports before the HC yesterday, said Shahriar Alam had advised the Supreme Court to keep patience over the SC land as the lawmaker had personal interest in the issue.

The reports should be considered correct as neither the Speaker nor the parliament member had refuted them, he said.

Abdul Hamid had also said measures could have been taken over the issue if the law minister had been present in the country, the lawyer added.

Manzill Murshid asked whether the comments of the duo have damaged the dignity and image of the court.

Justice Manik, presiding judge of the bench, said the Speaker’s comments violated the rules of procedure of parliament and this was highly contemptuous.

He said the Speaker had tried to interfere in the independence of the judiciary and influence the Supreme Court.

The Speaker's duty was to regulate parliament and preside over its sessions, not to take part in any debate, motion and discussion, the judge said.

The Speaker has used a non-parliamentary language by saying "Ami Ki Honu Re [what I've become] referring to the SC judges, he added.

The Supreme Court is a constitutional institution like parliament, and they are not controlled by any other, he said.

Citing from the books Parliamentary Practice written by Erskine May, Parliament Today by Andrew Adonis and Practice and Procedure of Parliament by MN Kaul and SL Shakdher, Justice Manik said the Speaker could not take part in any debate, motion and discussion on anything, let alone a sub-judice matter.

“It was utter ignorance of the Speaker about the Supreme Court and the constitution and a total abuse of parliamentary privilege.”

He added the Speaker had made the outrageous comments against the SC perhaps considering that this court could not issue any contempt of court rule against him.

“We are infuriated, dis-

mayed and amassed over the comments of the Speaker.”

He also said the Speaker did not know that the law minister had no power to take any measure against the judges of the apex court and this court was not controlled by the minister.

The law minister would have felt ashamed if he had been in the country, he added.

Justice Manik said the court had ordered the handover of the SC land in the greater interest of the people as the SC was suffering from a serious accommodation crisis.

The contempt petition was filed in December last year, he said. But the HC waited until February to issue the rule against the government officials as the land was not returned to the SC.

The HC had asked the officials concerned in July last year to hand over the land in 15 days and the Appellate Division also later upheld the HC directive.

Justice Manik added that the Speaker, without knowing the facts, had said the SC had taken the decisions in haste.

The Speaker should have stopped Shahriar Alam when the ruling party MP raised the sub-judice matter, the judge said. But it was unfortunate that the Speaker himself took part in the discussion.

It is a universal rule that no observation should be made against any person or an institution in his or its absence, but the Speaker and the lawmaker have made the comment against the SC in absence of its representative.

Justice Manik asked the lawyers present in the courtroom whether the court can refer the matter of advocateship of Abdul Hamid for action.

Advocate Abdul Matin Khasru MP, advocate Nurul Islam Sujan MR advocate Anisul Huq and Additional Attorney General MK Rahman requested the court not to pass any directives against the Speaker, saying that the Speaker was the symbol of an institution.

They said if the court passed any order against the Speaker, a distance would be created between the judi-

ciary and the legislative.

The bench then fixed July 9 for further hearing on the contempt of court rule.

Meanwhile yesterday, SC Registrar AKM Shamsul Islam informed the court that the RHD officials had vacated the rooms of buildings which were earlier in the possession of RDH, as per the HC's May 14 directive.