& 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

Speaker's Ruling

HC disposes of writ petition

Observations to be issued later

Staff Correspondent
The High Court yesterday disposed of a writ petition challenging the legality of Speaker Abdul Hamid's June 18 ruling and said it would make some observations on the issue later.
In his ruling, the Speaker said an HC judge [Justice AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury Manikl had violated the constitution by making “derogatory remarks” about parliament and the Speaker.
The HC observations on the Speaker's ruling would be available in a written order, Deputy Attorney General Biswajit Roy told The Daily Star yesterday afternoon. He, however, could not specify when the observations would be made public.
Earlier in the day, the bench of Justice Hasan Foez Siddique and Justice ABM Altaf Hossain heard arguments from the petitioner's counsels and the deputy attorney general.
Supreme Court lawyer AKM Shafiuddin filed the petition on July 18.
In the petition, he prayed to the HC to direct the Speaker not to issue such rulings in future, saying that the Speaker could not rule against an SC judge as per parliament’s rules of procedure.
Rokanuddin Mahmud, the petitioner's counsel, told the court that the Speaker should not have delivered the ruling on such a sensitive matter based merely on newspaper reports.
It was not wise to say that the judge, who took the oath of office, had violated the constitution, he said.
If any allegation was raised against a judge, only the president could refer it to the Supreme Judicial Council, Rokanuddin said.
Akhtar Imam, another counsel for the petitioner, in written submissions said the Speaker had clearly exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing the ruling, as “no provision in the constitution or in the rules of procedure of parliament empowers him to that effect".
The Speaker had no authority to ask or request the chief justice to take any action against a judge of the SC, the counsel said.
The deputy attorney general opposed the petition, saying it was not maintainable, since the petitioner had not been aggrieved by the Speaker's ruling.
If the HC issued any rule based on the petition, he contended, it might put the judiciary and the legislature on a collision course.