& 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 About an HC Judge

HC verdict wrong, unjustified: Govt

Staff Correspondent
***Government appeals to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court judgement***
The government yesterday filed an appeal with the Supreme Court challenging a recent High Court verdict that termed the Speaker's June 18 ruling about an HC judge "ineffective and baseless".
In the appeal, the government termed the HC judgement "illegal, wrong, unjustified and unwise" for six reasons. It also said the HC verdict had no binding effect in accordance with the constitution.
On June 18, Speaker Abdul Hamid ruled that an HC judge (Justice AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury Manik) had violated the constitution by making "derogatory remarks" about the Jatiya Sangsad and the Speaker.
Challenging the Speaker's ruling, a Supreme Court lawyer filed a writ petition with the HC on July 18. The HC gave a verdict on the petition on July 24.
The judgement which was released on August 27 said the Speaker's observations on the HC judge had no legal effect and was baseless in the eyes of the law.
The government challenged this HC verdict by filing a leave to appeal petition (prayer for permission to move a regular appeal) with the SC yesterday.
The appeal said the HC had done a grave wrong by disposing of the SC lawyer's petition by interpreting some provisions of the constitution and parliamentary rules of procedure with-
out issuing any rule or notice and without giving any opportunity to the respondents.
Secretaries to the law ministry and Jatiya Sangsad and the Speaker were the respondents.
According to the appeal, the HC has done a gross illegality and stepped into the sovereign authority of parliament by declaring the Speaker's ruling non est (baseless) and unconstitutional.
The HC has failed to consider that the Speaker's ruling was nothing but a pious wish/expression of the House of Nation upon the chief justice to deal with the matter in a manner he deems fit and that the Speaker would fully support whatever his (CJ) decision or action be, it said.
It was not that the Speaker asked the chief justice to do something or pass any law, the appeal said.
"The High Court Division was fully unjustified and unwise in holding that the privileges and immunities granted to parliament and its members were subject to judicial review and interpretations of Article 78 of the constitution."
The government feared that the HC order would affect the harmonious relationship of the three organs of the state and would lead to vendetta and create confusion in the public mind at large, causing great harm to the rule of law, independence of judiciary, and democracy.