& 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

Govt yet to amend Warrant of Precedence

SC directive issued over two and a half years ago

Ashutosh Sarkar
The government is yet to take any initiative to amend the Warrant of Precedence, over two and a half years since the Supreme Court (SC) released a full verdict on an appeal, directing it to do so.
Warrant of Precedence lays down the relative precedence in terms of ranks of important functionaries belonging to the executive, legislative and judicial organs of the state, including members of the foreign diplomatic corps.
The warrant or order is generally used for the purpose of invitation of dignitaries to state and important official functions including their seating arrangements, and sequence of presence to receive and see off Very Important Persons such as the president or prime minister when they go abroad, and also to receive their counterparts within the country, according to Banglapedia.
While asked why the government has not amended the existing Warrant of Precedence in line with the Supreme Court directive, Law Minister Anisul Huq last month refused to make any comment on this issue.
However, a law ministry high official, requesting anonymity, told The Daily Star last month that the government has not amended the Warrant of Precedence, as it has filed a petition with the Appellate Division of the SC, seeking review of its judgement on this issue.
The existing Warrant of Precedence will remain effective until the review petition is
disposed of, the official added.
However, no such petition has been heard by the Supreme Court yet, since the release of the full SC verdict.
Advocate M Asaduzzaman, who argued for a writ petition before the High Court for the amendment of the Warrant of Precedence, told The Daily Star a few weeks ago that the government's inaction in amending the Warrant of Precedence despite the SC directive is tantamount to continuation of the contempt of court.
"If my client instructs me to move a contempt of court petition against the government, I will do so," he added.
Md Ataur Rahman, a former secretary general of Bangladesh Judicial Service Association, filed the writ petition on behalf of the organisation in 2006 with the HC, saying that the Cabinet Division had framed the existing Warrant of Precedence in 1986 in an arbitrary manner, without evaluating the dignity and status of judicial officials.
Following the writ petition, the HC on February 4,2010, declared the existing Warrant of Precedence illegal and void, and directed the government to issue a new Warrant of Precedence for the republic's officers and to give district judges and equivalent judicial officers' precedence over the chiefs of the armed forces, and government secretaries.
The cabinet secretary, chiefs of staff of the army, navy and air force, and the principal secretary to the PM hold 12th position in the Warrant of Precedence. Later in 2011, the cabinet secretary filed the appeal with the SC on behalf of the government, challenging die HC verdict.
On January 11, 2015, the Appellate Division delivered a short verdict after disposing of the appeal.
On November 10, 2016, it released the full text of its verdict. The status of the chief justice should be equal to that of the Jatiya Sangsad Speaker, it observed in the verdict.
The Speaker holds third position and the chief justice fourth in the existing Warrant of Precedence, formulated in 1986 and revised in 2008. President and prime minister enjoy the first and the second positions respectively.
The SC in its verdict also directed the government to give district judges the status equivalent to that of government secretaries. The current position of district judges is 24th and that of secretaries is 16th.
The SC said in the verdict, "It is to be noted that vice president was placed at second place and the prime minister was placed at third position of the table of the Warrant of Precedence of 1975.
"Because of the abolition of the post of vice president, the post of prime minister was upgraded to second position, and the Speaker was upgraded to third, keeping the chief justice in fourth place - thereby degrading the position of the chief justice which is not contemplated in the constitution."
"The chief justice should be placed at third position of the impugned Warrant of Precedence along with the Speaker," it mentioned.