এখান সংবিধান রিলেটেড কিছু মামলার রায় ও বিচারক এবং ফ্যাক্ট দেওয়া আছে। বিভিন্ন যায়গা থেকে সংগ্রহীত। পড়ে দেখতে পারেন ইচ্ছে হলে।
Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd. v. Government of Bangladesh:
Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd. v. Government of Bangladesh is a case of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. In a significant verdict in 2010, the court overturned the fifth amendment to the
Constitution of Bangladesh made in 1979; and strengthened the secular democratic character of the Bangladeshi republic.
Constitution of Bangladesh made in 1979; and strengthened the secular democratic character of the Bangladeshi republic.
Court Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Chief Justice Mohammad Tafazzul Islam
Justice Mohammad Fazlul Karim
Justice Mohammad Abdul Matin
Justice Bijan Kumar Das
Justice Mohammad Muzammel Hossain
Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Chief Justice Mohammad Tafazzul Islam
Justice Mohammad Fazlul Karim
Justice Mohammad Abdul Matin
Justice Bijan Kumar Das
Justice Mohammad Muzammel Hossain
Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha
Facts
In 2000, the owner of the Moon Cinema Hall in
Dhaka filed a writ petition under Article 102 of the constitution claiming that the declaration of the cinema hall as an "abandoned property" was unlawful. It sought a direction upon the government to return the premises to their original owners. In that writ petition, the petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Fifth Amendment Act 1979, which validated
Martial Law Proclamation Orders between 1975 and 1979. A verdict was reached on 29th August 2005 in the Dhaka High Court , in which Justice A. B. M. Khairul Haque and Justice A. T. M. Fazle Kabir declared the Fifth Amendment Act 1979 unlawful and directed the Government of Bangladesh to return the Moon Cinema Hall to its original owners. The erstwhile Bangladesh Nationalist Party -led government appealed in the Supreme Court and obtained a stay on the High Court's judgement. In 2009, the Awami League -led government withdrew the state's appeal.
In 2000, the owner of the Moon Cinema Hall in
Dhaka filed a writ petition under Article 102 of the constitution claiming that the declaration of the cinema hall as an "abandoned property" was unlawful. It sought a direction upon the government to return the premises to their original owners. In that writ petition, the petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Fifth Amendment Act 1979, which validated
Martial Law Proclamation Orders between 1975 and 1979. A verdict was reached on 29th August 2005 in the Dhaka High Court , in which Justice A. B. M. Khairul Haque and Justice A. T. M. Fazle Kabir declared the Fifth Amendment Act 1979 unlawful and directed the Government of Bangladesh to return the Moon Cinema Hall to its original owners. The erstwhile Bangladesh Nationalist Party -led government appealed in the Supreme Court and obtained a stay on the High Court's judgement. In 2009, the Awami League -led government withdrew the state's appeal.
Judgement
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court declared the Fifth Amendment Act 1979 null and void. It ruled that martial law was illegal and unconstitutional. Hence, all martial law proclamations were also illegal.
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court declared the Fifth Amendment Act 1979 null and void. It ruled that martial law was illegal and unconstitutional. Hence, all martial law proclamations were also illegal.
Significance
The verdict invalidated Proclamation Orders issued by the Chief Martial Law Administrator between 1975 and 1979, including the removal of secularism as a fundamental principle from the constitution. The verdict was implemented by the Fifteenth Amendment Act 2011 in the
Parliament of Bangladesh .
The verdict overturned earlier judicial precedents in Bangladesh and Pakistan , in which the courts sought to support coups on the grounds of the doctrine of necessity. The verdict was interpreted as a victory for democracy and parliamentary supremacy. Martial law was declared to be illegal for good.
The verdict invalidated Proclamation Orders issued by the Chief Martial Law Administrator between 1975 and 1979, including the removal of secularism as a fundamental principle from the constitution. The verdict was implemented by the Fifteenth Amendment Act 2011 in the
Parliament of Bangladesh .
The verdict overturned earlier judicial precedents in Bangladesh and Pakistan , in which the courts sought to support coups on the grounds of the doctrine of necessity. The verdict was interpreted as a victory for democracy and parliamentary supremacy. Martial law was declared to be illegal for good.
&&&&&&&&&&&&
SIDDIQUE AHMED VS. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH AND OTHERS, 2 LNJ (AD) (2013) 50
Case No: CIVIL APPEAL No. 48 of 2011
Judge: A. B. M. Khairul Haque,
Court: Appellate Division ,,
Advocate: Mr. Mahbubey Alam,Syed Amirul Islam,Mr. Murad Reza,Mr. Hassan M. S. Azim,,
Citation: 2 LNJ (AD) (2013) 50
Case Year: 2013
Appellant: Siddique Ahmed
Respondent: Government of Bangladesh and others
Delivery Date: 2011-05-15
APPELLATE DIVISION
(CIVIL)
A.B.M. Khairul Haque, CJ.
Md. Muzammel Hossain, J.
S. K. Sinha, J.
Nazmun Ara Sultana, J.
Syed Mahmud Hossain, J.
Muhammad Imman Ali, J.
Judgment
15.05.2011
Case No: CIVIL APPEAL No. 48 of 2011
Judge: A. B. M. Khairul Haque,
Court: Appellate Division ,,
Advocate: Mr. Mahbubey Alam,Syed Amirul Islam,Mr. Murad Reza,Mr. Hassan M. S. Azim,,
Citation: 2 LNJ (AD) (2013) 50
Case Year: 2013
Appellant: Siddique Ahmed
Respondent: Government of Bangladesh and others
Delivery Date: 2011-05-15
APPELLATE DIVISION
(CIVIL)
A.B.M. Khairul Haque, CJ.
Md. Muzammel Hossain, J.
S. K. Sinha, J.
Nazmun Ara Sultana, J.
Syed Mahmud Hossain, J.
Muhammad Imman Ali, J.
Judgment
15.05.2011
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Anwar Hossain Chowdhury Vs. Bangladesh, 1989, 18 CLC (AD)
Supreme CourtAppellate Division(Civil)
Present:Badrul Haider Chowdhury JShahabuddin Ah-med JM.H. Rahman JA.T.M. Afzal
JAnwar Hossain Chowdhury.................Appellant(In Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1988)Vs.Government of thePeople's Republic of Bangladesh
(InCivil Appeal No. 42 of 1988)Jalaluddin....................Appe-llant(In Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1988)Vs. Government of thePeople's Republic of Bangladesh
Judgment September 2, 1989.TheConstitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article 100, 107 & 142MajorityviewPerB.H. Chowdhury, J: Basic structural pillars of the Constitution cannot be changed byamendment. The structural pillars ofParliament and Judiciary are basic and fundamental. It is inconceiva-ble thatby its amending power the Parliament can deprive itself wholly or partly ofthe plenary legisla-tive power over the entire Republic. The impugned amendment in a subtle mannerin the name of creating "Permanent Benches" has indeed erected newcourts parallel to the High Court Division as contemplated in Articles94,101,102. Thus the basic structural pillar, that is judiciary, has beendestroyed and plenary judicial power of the Republic vested in the High CourtDi-vision has been taken away. Hence amendment of Article 100 is ultra vires be-cause it has destroyedthe essential limb of the judiciary namely, of the Supreme Court of Bangladeshby setting up rival courts to the High Court Division in the name ofPermanent Benches conferring full jurisdictions, powers and functions of the
High Court Division.
High Court Division.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
13th amendment case of bangladesh constitution:
CIVIL APPEAL No. 139 of 2005 with CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.596 OF 2005. (From the certificate granted under Article 103(2)(a) of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and from judgment and order dated 4.8.2004 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 4112 of 1999 ) Abdul Mannan Khan ..................
Appellant. (In C.A. No.139/20005) Abdul Mannan Khan -VERSUS- Government of Bangladesh
PRESENT: Mr. Justice A.B.M. Khairul Haque. -Chief Justice. Mr. Justice Md. Muzammel Hossain. Mr. Justice S. K. Sinha. Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah. Ms. Justice Nazmun Ara Sultana. Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain. Mr. Justice Muhammad Imman Ali.
As amici curiae :
Mr. T.H. Khan,SeniorAdvocate
Dr. Kamal Hossain, Senior Advocate
Mr. Rafique-ul-Huq, Senior Advocate
Dr. M. Zahir,
Mr. M. Amirul Islam,
Mr. Mahmudul Islam, Mr. Rokanuddin Mahmud, Mr. Ajmalul Hossain,
Mr. Mahmudul Islam, Mr. Rokanuddin Mahmud, Mr. Ajmalul Hossain,
both are senior Advocate
judgement :
“It is hereby declared: (1) The appeal is allowed by majority without any order as to costs. (2) The Constitution (Thirteenth amendement) Act, 1996 (Act 1 of 1996) is prospectively declared void and ultra vires the Constitution. (3) The election of the Tenth and the Eleventh Parliament may be held under the provisions of the above mentioned Thirteenth Amendment on the age old prinicples, namely, quod alias non est licitum, necessitas licitum facit (That which otherwise is not lawful, necessity makes lawful), salus populi suprema lex (safety of the people is the supreme law) and salus republicae est suprema lex (safety of the State is the Suprme law). The parliament, however, in the meantime, is at liberty to bring necessary amendments excluding the provisions of making the former Chief Justices of Bangladesh or the Judges of the Appellate Division as the head of the Non-Party Care-taker Government. The Judgment in detail would follow. The connected Civil Petition for leave to appeal No.596 of 2005 is accordingly, disposed of.”
&&&&&&&&
Secretary, Ministry of Finance v Masdar Hossain (1999) 52 DLR (AD) 82
Secretary, Ministry of Finance v Masdar Hossain (1999) 52 DLR (AD) 82 is a case of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. The case concerned the separation of powers in Bangladesh. It is popularly known as the Masdar Hossain case .
Judge(s) sitting Chief Justice Mustafa Kamal
Justice Latifur Rahman
Justice Bimalendu Bikash Roy Choudhury
Justice Mahmudul Amin Choudhury.
Justice Latifur Rahman
Justice Bimalendu Bikash Roy Choudhury
Justice Mahmudul Amin Choudhury.
Facts
In 1995, a writ petition was filed by Masdar Hossain, a district judge, on behalf of 441 other civil court judges. The petition put forward the following points:-
Including the judicial service under the
executive branch 's orders was ultra vires.
Chapter II of Part VI of the constitution ensured lower courts were separate from the executive.
Judges of lower courts could not be subject to an Administrative Tribunal of the executive.
The Dhaka High Court ruled in favor of the petition with a 12-point directive in 1997. The government appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
In 1995, a writ petition was filed by Masdar Hossain, a district judge, on behalf of 441 other civil court judges. The petition put forward the following points:-
Including the judicial service under the
executive branch 's orders was ultra vires.
Chapter II of Part VI of the constitution ensured lower courts were separate from the executive.
Judges of lower courts could not be subject to an Administrative Tribunal of the executive.
The Dhaka High Court ruled in favor of the petition with a 12-point directive in 1997. The government appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
Judgement
In 1999, the Supreme Court reversed parts of the High Court ruling, but upheld the 12 point directive. It issued a further 12 point directive. The Supreme Court called for the formation of an independent judicial commission to select members of the judiciary, deal with matters of judicial salaries and manage discipline. The Supreme Court ruled that the constitution provided a framework for judicial independence.
In 1999, the Supreme Court reversed parts of the High Court ruling, but upheld the 12 point directive. It issued a further 12 point directive. The Supreme Court called for the formation of an independent judicial commission to select members of the judiciary, deal with matters of judicial salaries and manage discipline. The Supreme Court ruled that the constitution provided a framework for judicial independence.
Significance
The verdict led to the formation of the
Bangladesh Judicial Service Commission . It was implemented by Chief Advisor Fakhruddin Ahmed during the caretaker administration in 2007
The verdict led to the formation of the
Bangladesh Judicial Service Commission . It was implemented by Chief Advisor Fakhruddin Ahmed during the caretaker administration in 2007
