SOME ministers and senior bureaucrats of the government, at a cabinet meeting on October 7, expressed their resentment at the High Court's recent verdict declaring the contempt of court law unconstitutional and void.

In their view, the civil administration's functions and state interests are being affected by contempt of court rules issued by the High Court. The ministers and secretaries suggested to the law ministry to expedite legal steps against the HC's recent verdict declaring the contempt of court law void.

The ministers and bureaucrats are favouring the void contempt of court law as it had provided the bureaucrats with some protection against contempt of court charges.

The way they spoke at the cabinet meeting showed that the government will try to do something to address the issue.

But what the government has already done centering the contempt of court law issue has exposed its policy of convenience. How? The Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional and void two laws, one on the non-partisan caretaker government system and the other on contempt of court. In an ideal situation, the government was supposed to apply the same policy to respond to the verdicts to uphold the rule of law.

But Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's government has not applied the same policy. Rather, it is evident that her government has opted for a policy of convenience to deal with the verdicts.

Take first the verdict on the election time caretaker government system. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on May 10, 2011, declared unconstitutional and void the Constitution's 13th Amendment act that had introduced the caretaker government in 1996 amid growing political unrest.

Hasina's government did not take much time to implement the court's ruling. Her government did not even wait for release of the full copy of the apex court's verdict. The government repealed the constitutional provision on the caretaker government system through passing the Constitution 15th Amendment act on June 30 the same year.

In doing so, it did not pay heed to the apex court's observation that the void non-partisan government system might be practiced for holding two more parliamentary elections for the safety of the people and of the state.

Why did the government do it so hurriedly? It is clear that the government took advantage of the verdict to scrap the caretaker government system. Cancellation of the system has cleared the way for Hasina's ruling Awami League to get benefit from staying in power during the next general elections.

The cancellation has put the BNP-led opposition alliance in an awkward position. They have been demanding resto-

ration of the non-partisan election time government, and threatened that they will not join the polls and exert to all means to resist it.

So, uncertainty looms large over the fate of a participatory parliamentary election. The people are apprehensive that there may be political turmoil after Eid-ul-Azha.

In defending their scrapping of the caretaker government system, Hasina and her colleagues in the cabinet and the party have been saying that they cannot use the parliament to make the illegal caretaker government provisions legal. They have been reiterating that they will do whatever is needed to uphold the constitution and they will in no way allow any extra-constitutional activities.

But their arguments fall flat as they have ignored the apex court's verdict on the contempt of court law and enacted a new law on contempt incorporating the same void provisions.

How did the government do this?

The past caretaker government-led by Fakhruddin Ahmed made a new law on contempt of court through promulgation of an ordinance in 2008. The ordinance had repealed the contempt of court law of 1926 made by the British colonial regime.

The law made in 2008 exempted the government officials from personally appearing before the court in contempt of court charges. It also made provision for engaging government lawyers for the official facing contempt charges.

The then government had made these provisions to provide the government officials with some undue protection against contempt of court charges.

In 2008, a High Court Division bench consisting of Justice A.B.M. Khairul Haque declared the contempt of court ordinance of 2008 unconstitutional and void as it undermined the judiciary and discriminated against people. The then caretaker government accepted the court's ruling and did not file any appeal with the Appellate Division challenging the verdict.

Sheikh Hasina's government, however, did something different. It used the parliament to enact a new law on contempt of court incorporating almost identical provisions which were earlier declared unconstitutional and void. The parliament passed a bill to enact the new law in February 2013.

Why did the government do this? It was done to protect its officials from contempt of court charges. But its efforts were in vain as the High Court declared it unconstitutional and void on September 26. The government has decided to challenge the verdict by filing an appeal with the Appellate Division.

Before this, the attorney general's office, in line with the government's directive on September 29, filed a petition with the apex court seeking a stay order on the HC verdict.

The two incidents discussed above have clearly exposed the government's policy of convenience.

The writer is Senior Reporter, The Daily Star.