The High Court has given the verdict by declaring the rules and subdivisions, including the provision of mobile courts with executive magistrates, to be contradictory to the constitution. It has been said in the court verdict that these 11 provisions have been directly hit by the independence of the judiciary. According to the verdict, the Mobile Court can not be administered by the Executive Magistrate through the 2009 Hot Court Act.
The High Court bench of Justice Mainul Islam Chowdhury and Justice Ashish Ranjan Das announced the verdict on Thursday after the final hearing of the separate writ petition filed by executive magistrates challenging the validity of conducting mobile courts and conducting trial.
In the verdict, the mobile courts are in conflict with the constitution of Article 5, 6 (1), 6 (2), 6 (4), 7, 8 (1), 9, 10, 11, 13 and 15 and the judiciary independence And in three parts of the state (executive, law and judiciary), the constitutional constitution of separation of power is contrary to two fundamental structures. Apart from the challenges faced by the High Court in order to avoid untimely complexity and controversy, all the orders, punishments and punishments given by the mobile court are considered pending in the past.
The declared verdict says that the provision of judicial powers to the Executive Magistrates and District Magistrates violates the constitution by the provisions of the law and it is against the policy of separation of power and independence of the judiciary. Executive Magistrate and District Magistrate, all members of the Bangladesh Employment Commission (Administration) Administrative Executive. As administrative executive, they can not exercise the sovereign judicial power of the Republic, because the verdict in Masdar Hossain case is clearly stated. It is also said, 5, 6 (1), 6 (2), 6 (4), 7, 8 (1), 9, 10, 11 and 13, ‘Colorable Prohibition’. The series directly contradicts the verdict of Masder Hossain’s verdict.
In the context of two separate writ petitions, six years ago and in the context of one another, the rule was made five years ago. Rully Mobile Court Rules, 5,6 (1), 6 (2), 6 (4), 7, 8 (1), 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 of the Act, will not be declared contradictory to why the constitution is not declared Was done. The hearing ended on March 8 together on separate rules. On that day, the court stayed the verdict waiting for the verdict, and after today the rule was declared (Absolute) and the court gave the verdict.
Under the section 5 of the law, the executive magistrates have been asked to conduct mobile courts. Apart from this, the mobile court procedure under section 6 (1), 6 (2), 6 (4), 7, 8 (1), 9, 10, the powers given to the District Magistrate under section 11, appeal to section 13 and to the government to amend the schedule under section 15 Power has been said.
Hassan MS Azim, lawyer of three writ petitioners after the verdict was pronounced, said in the first light, the 11 rulings of the 2009 Hot Court Courts have been deferred by the High Court. As a result, the mobile court can not be administered by the executive magistrate through the law. To conduct a mobile court, now the law will be enacted in the light of the verdict of the constitution and Masar Hossain case. He said, the verdict on the sentence and penalty of mobile courts has been declared illegal by the two petitioners on the same verdict. It has been ordered to return 10 lakh taka to the applicant within 90 days to return the applicant to Mr. Mujibur Rahman.
Deputy attorney general Motahar Hossain Saju said that the High Court will appeal against the verdict. He said in the first light, there are some visible crimes including adulteration, cloth color mixing, and examination, in which cases of mobile court proceedings were conducted. In the schedule of the Mobile Court Act, there are 100 criminal offenses, which can be tried and punished. Mobile court proceedings can not be conducted by the Executive Magistrate due to the High Court verdict. However, if any such crime appears in the executive magistrates, then the person can immediately hand over the concerned person to the police station.
The verdict is said, it is not saying that Parliament is an integral part of the schedule of the legislation. It is not logical to justify why and how the government was empowered to amend the schedule of the Mobile Court Act by a gazette notification. The constitutional amendment powers are mainly amended. Under the 15th amendment of the law, the Parliament has given the government a favor to the government. Parliament may give powers to the government or other authority to make rules and regulations under the law. But parliament can not give it its main power to amend the original constitution. By transferring the power to amend the schedule of this law in 15 of the Act, the Parliament has undoubtedly violated the idea of separation of power. Separation of power is part of the fundamental framework of our constitution.