Enforcing constitutional pledge
The Constitution of Bangladesh 'as the solemn expression of the will of the people' is the supreme law of the land. It embodies the principles to be followed at the governance of the republic; it guarantees the rights of the people to be protected by the supreme judicial authority.  The Preamble of the Constitution pledges to establish a society, free from exploitation a society in which the rule of law, fundamental human rights and freedom, equality and justice, political, economic and social, will be secured for all citizens.
To manifest these towering ideals article 27 of the Constitution ensures 'equality before law' and 'equal protection of law'. Respect for human rights and dignity is the sine qua non of a democratic welfare State. The historic struggle for 'Rights of Man' is circumscribed by the denial of the absoluteness of the State and of its unconditional claim to obedience and, assertion of values and personal liberty against the State. One of the core rationales for adoption of written Constitution is to ensure 'recognition' and 'protection' of the individual's rights. In that esteem the Constitution of Bangladesh is unique as in addition to 'recognition' and 'protection' it affirms that 'laws' and/or 'actions' inconsistent with 'fundamental rights' shall to the extent of such inconsistency be void.
The High Court Division (HCD) of the Supreme Court (SC) is entrusted for enforcement of fundamental rights. As per article 100, the permanent seat of the SC (both divisions) is at Dhaka; though the sessions of the HCD could be held outside Dhaka it has never been accomplished after the Eighth Amendment case. The territorial remoteness coupled with cost, complexity and delay resulting in disinclination to approach the HCD at Dhaka for enforcement of fundamental rights. To ease this barrier the framers of the Constitution from their far reaching vision permitted the Parliament to delegate the power/s of the HCD to any other court under article 44(2). The present articulation explores the potential advantages to materialise article 44(2) of the Constitution.

The HCD: Defender of rights
The enduring aspiration for 'equality, human dignity and social justice' as envisaged in the Proclamation of Independence of Bangladesh prompted the framers to make the Part iii of the Constitution an abode of rights. In articles 27-44 eighteen human rights have been recognised as 'fundamental rights'; these are fundamental in the sense that rights recognised in those articles are not only judicially enforceable by articles 44 & 102 but also are free from any legislative transgression by virtue of article 26.
Uniqueness of article 44(1) rests on its two dimensional effects firstly, under article 102(1) it ensures enforcement of fundamental rights by the HCD; secondly, right to approach the HCD for enforcement of fundamental rights under article 44 (1) - itself is a 'fundamental right'. Assertion of jurisdiction under article 102(1) has placed the HCD in a celebrated position. Being empowered by article 102(1) the HCD may on the application of any aggrieved issue directions or orders to any person or public authority for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights. Clause (2) of article 102 authorises the HCD to examine the vires of any act or omission made by any public authority which is popularly known as 'judicial review'. By virtue of article 102 the HCD in term has become the defender of rights and safeguard against mal-administration.

Access tojustice
Seemingly the power to enforce fundamental rights along with the judicial review power has made the HCD a unique forum for justice. As the permanent seat of the HCD is at Dhaka and sessions of the HCD are never been decentralised, access to justice is likely to be jeopardised on account of territorial remoteness - associated with cost, complexity and delay.
Access to justice presupposes prompt and effective remedy through an available, affordable and efficient judicial process. Inaccessibility of the HCD, non-availability of cost effective remedy or delayed remedy under article 102 impairs the Constitutional commitment for 'rule of law, fundamental human rights and freedom, equality and justice'. Access to the HCD is prerequisite for enforcement of fundamental rights and judicial review of administrative action and to this end decentralisation of sessions or delegation of jurisdiction of the HCD is must.
Constitutional mandate for decentralisation & delegation
Predicting non-accessibility of the HC's jurisdiction of article 102 the framers of the Constitution prescribed alternative forum under articles 44(2) & 100. Article 100 permits the Chief Justice to decentralise sessions of the HCD subject to the approval of the President. Article 44(2) authorises the Parliament to enact law to delegate any or all powers of the HCD under article 102 to any other court to be exercised within the local limits of its jurisdiction.
Latifur Rahman, J and Advocate Mahmudul Islam suggested that such other court may be given concurrent but not exclusive power of enforcement of fundamental rights and judicial review under article 102 and; such jurisdiction may be delegated only to any court, not to any tribunal. To date, no law has been enacted under article 44(2) for delegation of HC's jurisdiction under article 102 to any other court.

An unsuccessful attempt for decentralisation  

By the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution the Parliament amended article 100 to set up six permanent HC Benches outside Dhaka and empowered the President to fix the territorial jurisdiction of new HC Benches and thereby to curtail the territorial jurisdiction of the HCD in Dhaka. Then, in the case of Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v Bangladesh (1989), amended article 100 was challenged for altering the basic structure of the Constitution by curbing the plenary jurisdiction of the HCD over the republic. Though the HCD summarily rejected the petition the AD declared the setting up of six permanent benches of the HC ultra vires for violation of basic structure of the Constitution.

For an extended forum
Decentralisation of sessions of the HCD under article 100 or delegation of jurisdiction under article 44(2) will enhance access to justice. Immediate output will be maximisation of judicial remedy and minimisation of cost, complexity and delay. Ultimate advantage will be improvement in governance, rule of law and human rights. Respect for justice and law is diminished when large sections of society are denied of equal access to justice. Keeping the HC inaccessible to the people of remote areas collective national development is impossible. Being imbibed of this reality the Parliament and Honorable Chief Justice may be pleased to move forward to unshackle the HCD from the clutch of privileged society. Let the justice be free to hear the unheard!!! Let the rights come home!!!

The writer is Lecturer in Law at University of Rajshahi.