Onus on CJ
This time the situation is different from the one which happened in 1993. The wisdom of a High Court bench had prevented then Speaker Sheikh Razzak Ali from issuing a ruling in June 1993. But this time, Speaker AbdulHamid has finally issued a ruling accusing a High Court judge of violating the constitution.
Nineteen years ago, the HC bench had called for a copy of parliamentary proceedings of a certain sitting. Through an order on June 17, 1993, it directed the secretary of the Jatiya Sangsad to send it a copy of the proceedings of Parliament session on May 11 of the same year.
It had sought the text of the proceedings in connection with a contempt petition filed against the then information minister over his derogatory remarks about the HC in parliament.
Annoyed by the court's order, MPs questioned the HC's jurisdiction to issue the order. They demanded that the Speaker give a ruling on whether the HC could seek texts of parliamentary proceedings, ignoring Article 78 of the constitution, according to the then parliamentary proceedings available in the Jatiya Sangsad library.
Article 78 (1) of the constitution says the validity of proceedings in parliament shall not be questioned in any court. Section 3 of the article says a member of parliament shall not be liable to proceedings in any court in respect of anything said, or any vote given, by him in parliament or in any committee thereof.
When his attention was drawn to Article 78, the then Speaker also made some strong comments about upholding MPs' sentiment, according to the parliamentary proceedings of June 19, 1993.
“It is clear that the High Court's hands are long but the question is whether they are long enough to reach Parliament… whether they are long enough to reach up to Parliament. That is the point at issue. This will be considered after I get the certified copy of the rule,” said the then Speaker.
The HC bench did not take much time to demonstrate its wisdom in the face of the then prevailing situation. Before the Speaker was provided with the certified copy of the court's order, the HC bench on June 21, 1993, recalled its own order and the Speaker refrained from issuing a ruling on the issue despite repeated demands by some MPs.
One of the two judges of the said HC bench subsequently became chief justice of Bangladesh.
Sheikh Razzak Ali's successor Abdul Hamid seems to have found no other alternative but to issue the ruling on Monday. He, however, took a long time to come up with the ruling following MPs' outburst at Justice Manik's June 5 derogatory remarks about the Speaker. He had discussed the issue with some senior experts, including the chief justice, in order to prepare his ruling.
To defend taking a long time for the ruling, Hamid in his ruling also said: “We had expected that the honourable judge would understand the entire matter and take proper steps to withdraw the comments that went beyond limits. But he did not do so.”
The situation might have been different had Justice AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury Manik withdrawn the comments that clearly went beyond limits.
What's the underlying meaning of the Speaker's ruling? Is it only a statement by the Speaker? Or is it his personal opinion?
In the opinion of parliamentary affairs experts, the Speaker's rulings carry immense significance and constitute precedents by which subsequent Speakers are guided.
In his book, “Parliamentary Practice and Procedure”, Bangladesh parliamentary affairs expert Khandaker Abdul Haque notes that the Speaker's ruling on any issue is final and there is no scope to hold a debate on it.
In their work, “Practice and Procedure of Parliament”, two Indian experts on parliamentary affairs, MN Kaul and SL Shakdher say the Speaker's rulings cannot be questioned except on a substantive motion.
A member who protests against the ruling of the Speaker commits contempt of the House and the Speaker, they said.
In their views, as the principal spokesman of the House, the Speaker represents its collective voice and is its sole representative before the outside world.
Considering the views of Kaul and Shakhdher, it may be said that what Hamid said in his ruling was the voice of the House. MPs supported his ruling by thumping their desks. Therefore, it can also be said that the House put the onus on the chief justice, as the Speaker in his ruling said, “We will support whatever steps the chief justice may take with regard to such behaviour by a court. Hopefully, that will prevent a recurrence of such incidents.”
Now, all eyes will remain focused on the chief justice to know what steps he may take.
Comments