Upazila Parishad law goes against SC verdict

Provisions of the newly-enacted Upazila Parishad Act, 2009, that empower lawmakers to meddle with the functioning of upazila parishads, go against a Supreme Court (SC) verdict.
"The members of parliament are entitled to ask for any information and raise grievance against any of their electorates before the House but cannot interfere with the local administration," asserted the SC in the verdict delivered on April 27, 2006.
The new Upazila Parishad Act empowers local lawmakers to interfere in the administration of the parishads as the law made them advisers to the parishads in their constituencies and the parishads have to "accept the suggestions of the lawmakers".
Moreover, the parishads are not allowed to send development plans to the government for implementation without recommendations from lawmakers.
Elected representatives of the upazila parishads have been demanding the scrapping of some provisions of the act so that the parishads could work independently.
The SC's April, 2006 verdict said the scheme of the constitution is that the members of the parliament and the ministers would perform their functions centrally, keeping in broad view the necessity of the country as a whole while functioning of the local government bodies envisaged under Articles 59 and 60, shall be confined to the needs of the local area.
"…The members of parliament have got no direct role or function, in respect of either development or maintenance of law and order, in the district or in other local administrative units," said the High Court (HC) Division of the SC in the verdict on a writ petition titled "Anwar Hossain Manju versus the government of Bangladesh".
Also the HC Division in the verdict declared illegal the notification on the appointment of district ministers. The government did not file any regular appeal against the verdict, which means the verdict is now law of the land, and the current government also refrained from introducing the system of district ministers.
On April 6, the parliament passed the upazila parishad bill to reintroduce the Upazila Parishad Act of 1998 with some amendments, including the ones that empower local lawmakers to meddle with the functioning of the local government body.
President Zillur Rahman consented to the bill on April 6 and the Parliament Secretariat published it in official gazette on April 8.
Legal experts said the Upazila Parishad Act also discriminates against the 45 lawmakers elected to women's reserved seats in parliament as only 300 MPs, who were elected in direct voting, were made advisers to the parishads.
They said all MPs are entitled to equal facilities and privileges but the Upazila Parishad Act provides more authority to the 300 lawmakers.
"Such discrimination runs counter to the constitution that bars discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. The constitution also asserts that women shall have rights equal to men in all spheres of the state and of public life," eminent jurist Shahdeen Malik told The Daily Star.
He said the constitution rather allows the state to make special provision in favour of women or children or for the advancement of any backward section of citizens.
Legal experts also said empowering the lawmakers to meddle with the functioning of the upazila parishads also contradicts with Articles 59 and 60 of the constitution, which deal with the formation, functions of the local government bodies.
Question has also been raised whether parliament can legislate law on local government to empower lawmakers over the upazila parishads, ignoring Articles 59 and 60 of the constitution.
In a verdict on the case of Kudrat-E-Elahi versus Bangladesh, the Appellate Division of the SC asserted that the parliament is not free to legislate on local government ignoring Articles 59 and 60 of the constitution.
"If the parliament has to pass a local government legislation, it has to conform with Articles 59 and 60, read with Article 152 (1)," former chief justice Mustafa Kamal observed in the Appellate Division verdict.
The former chief justice said local government shall be entrusted to bodies, composed of persons elected in accordance with the law. Special representation may be given to peasants, workers and women as per Article-9 but not by robbing the local government institutions of their elected, hence representative character.