No scope for fresh interpretation on Article 70: HC

No scope for fresh interpretation on Article 70: HC

0

Dhaka – A High Court bench on Tuesday said that in the Appellate Division verdict there is no chance for further discussion or fresh interpretation over the observations regarding Article 70 of the Constitution, which was upheld by the Appellate Division in its verdict on 16th amendment of the Constitution. Article 70 of the Constitution has allowed the cancellation of membership of a lawmaker for voting against his or her political party.
“The High Court Division has bindings to follow the Appellate Division verdict. The Appellate Division has accepted the High Court verdict over Article 70 and given its observations in this regard. There is no chance for further discussion or fresh interpretation over the issue as the apex court verdict is binding upon the High Court,” the HC bench of Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury and Justice JBM Hassan made the observation during a writ hearing filed against Article 70 of the Constitution.
However, the HC bench adjourned hearing on the petition till a week after the Supreme Court vacation. The Supreme Court goes into from August 24 till September 28.
During the hearing on the writ petition, the HC bench said that in the previous verdict delivered by a High Court bench on the 16th amendment to the constitution had observed that the MPs cannot take independent views. The Appellate Division upheld it in the final verdict and gave detailed explanations over the issue. It is binding upon us, the HC bench said.
Supreme Court lawyer Eunus Ali Akond filed the petition challenging the legality of Article 70 of the Constitution which allows the cancellation of membership of an MP for voting against his or her political party.
At one stage of the hearing, the HC bench sought the copy of 16th amendment case verdict. Akond said that he did not get the copy of the verdict. Hence, he has submitted a supplementary petition where some observations were mentioned.
But, the HC bench said that the observations mentioned in your (Akond) supplementary petition were not correct. This petition has to be modified, the court said.
Deputy attorney general Motahar Hossain Sazu urged the court to reject the petition saying that it was not public interest litigation and the petitioner was not an aggrieved person. He filed the petition for his personal interests, Saju added.
The petitioner has misquoted the Appellate Division verdict over 16th amendment case. The petitioner should be fined for giving misquote over the apex court verdict and the petition should be rejected, he added.
“If the court issues rule on this petition, it would enhance existing conflict between executives and judiciary,” Saju noted.
Later, the court adjourned the hearing on the petition till one week after the reopening of the Supreme Court from vacation. – Staff Reporter

Share.

Comments are closed.