The High Court has issued a rule questioning why it would not be unconstitutional to pardon a convicted prisoner without a policy framework. The rule also inquires why directives should not be issued to formulate a policy regarding the President’s power to pardon convicted individuals.
The Cabinet Secretary, the Law Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Parliament Secretary, and the Secretary to the President’s Office have been asked to respond to these rules.
Following the primary hearing of the related writ petition, a High Court bench comprising Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debashish Roy Chowdhury issued the rule on Monday.
Advocate Ishrat Hasan represented the petitioner in court, assisted by Advocate Md Rashidul Hasan and Tanzila Rahman. Deputy Attorney General Mohsin Kabir Rocky represented the state.
On January 20, a writ petition was filed in the High Court challenging the validity of pardoning convicted prisoners without a policy framework. Supreme Court lawyer Advocate Ishrat Hasan filed this writ in the public interest, requesting the formulation of a policy regarding the President’s exercise of the power to grant pardons.
The writ petition states that Article 49 of the Constitution grants the President the power to pardon. However, this power is absolute and lacks any policy framework.
There are no guidelines on who is being pardoned or on what basis, which contradicts Articles 7, 27, 31, and 32 of the Constitution. Due to the misuse of this power, many convicted criminals have been pardoned. Among them, former army chief’s brother Joseph and Aslam Fakir are notable examples.
Later, Advocate Ishrat Hasan said that, for years, there has been extreme misuse of the President’s power to pardon. In past governments, this power has been exploited to pardon convicted murderers.
As a result, the general public has developed concerns about access to justice and has become frustrated with the justice system. To prevent the abuse of this power, it is essential to formulate a policy framework.