Why should they not face action?

The High Court yesterday asked the authorities to explain in three weeks why they should not be directed to take legal action against those behind the transport strike enforced to protest a court verdict.  

In the rule, it also ordered the respondents to show causes as to why calling a strike or hartal against a court verdict should not be declared illegal.

At the same time, the authorities were told to take steps to ensure operation of transport across the country within 24 hours and to submit a report on compliance with the directive in two weeks.

Secretaries to the Road Transport and Highways Division and home ministry, chairmen of Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation and Bangladesh Road Transport Authority, inspector general of police, deputy inspectors general of police of Dhaka, Rajshahi, Barisal, Khulna, Rangpur, Chittagong, Sylhet and Mymensingh ranges, director general of the Rapid Action Battalion, presidents and general secretaries of Bangladesh Road Transport Workers Federations of Dhaka and Khulna and Bangladesh Sarak Paribahan Malik Samity have been made respondents to the rule.       

A bench of Justice Syed Muhammad Dastagir Husain and Justice Md Ataur Rahman Khan passed the rule and order after hearing a writ petition filed as public interest litigation by a rights organisation, Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh.

The rights body in the petition challenged the legality of the transport strike enforced in protest at two court verdicts that gave life sentence to a bus driver over the deaths of filmmaker Tareque Masud, media personality Ashfaque Munier Mishuk and three others in a 2011 accident and sentenced a truck driver to death over the death of a woman in a 2003 accident in Savar.

HRPB also said enforcing a strike or hartal against a court verdict is tantamount to contempt of court and obstruction to the dispensation of justice. The strike has caused public suffering and obstructed regular life. 

The transportation of goods was hindered, and raw materials rotted away, thereby affecting the revenue generation, the petitioner said.

The rights body's lawyer, Manzill Murshid told the court the decision of enforcing the strike had reportedly been taken at a minister's residence.  Due to the “illegal” strike, the transport workers were encouraged to act at their will, which led to the setting fire to many establishments across the country.

Advocate Murshid prayed to the court to pass an order against the people responsible for the strike.

Deputy Attorney General Amit Talukder cited an earlier observation of the Supreme Court that enforcing hartal like programmes is a democratic right.

To that, Murshid said political hartal is legal, but the transport strike was not a political one but against a court judgment.

Meanwhile, an SC lawyer yesterday urged the president and the prime minister to take steps to terminate Shipping Minister Shajahan Khan for “supporting the strike”.

Eunus Ali Akond sent copies of a memorandum to the offices of President Abdul Hamid and PM Sheikh Hasina, claiming that the minister had provoked the transport workers to enforce the strike, which was tantamount to contempt of court and a breach of minister's oath.

The minister's action was also “unconstitutional” and “seditious” as defined in article-7A of the constitution, Akond said in the memorandum.

Besides, holding positions as a minister and executive president of Bangladesh Road Transport Workers Association at the same time by Shajahan is illegal, he added.