The High Court yesterday declared that there was no scope to question the validity of the 153 MPs who were elected unopposed in the 10th parliamentary election held on January 5.
It said the article 19 of the Representation of the People Order (RPO), 1972 was in no way contrary to the constitution. The ruling came in response to a petition that challenged the provision of declaring candidates elected uncontested.
On another petition, the court ruled that according to the “Doctrine of Separation of Power,” parliament could decide whether it was necessary to insert “No” vote provision in the RPO.
The “No” vote provision was introduced during the military-backed caretaker government through an ordinance. But the Awami League government did not ratify it after coming to power in January 2009.
The High Court bench of Justice Mirza Hussain Haider and Justice Khurshid Alam Sarkar delivered the rulings after rejecting two writ petitions on the issues.
Meanwhile, the petitioners are yet to decide about filing appeals against the rulings.
Attorney General Mahbubey Alam said: “The much-controversial matter of uncontested elected members of parliament has been resolved through the High Court judgement.”
The bench said the court could scrap a provision or a law only when it was explicitly inconsistent with the constitution. But the provision, that allows declaring a lone candidate elected uncontested, was in no way contrary to the constitution.
So, there was no scope to question the validity of the 153 lawmakers under the current legal framework, the bench said.
Khandker Abdus Salam, a former vice-chairman of HM Ershad-led Jatiya Party and chairman of Shawnirbhar Group, on December 17 filed the writ petition challenging the uncontested winner provision.
The petition says: “Salam sought to contest in the 10th national election from Gazipur 1 constituency. But due to legal complications, his nomination paper was rejected by the returning officer concerned. Although the petitioner preferred an appeal subsequently against such rejection of his nomination paper, he nevertheless did not proceed any further as his party chief opted to stay out of the said election process.”
After the ruling, Salam yesterday told the Dhaka Tribune: “I resigned from the Jatiya Party in January this year. I believe in democracy but my party participated in the election compromising with the Awami League.”
In reply to a question, Salam said he had no plan to join any political party.
Salam said he would consult his lawyer after getting the full text of the verdict to reach a decision whether to file an appeal against the High Court verdict or not.
His lawyer Hasan MS Azim yesterday pleaded to the court for a certificate so that he could lodge an appeal directly, without taking permission of the court to file it. However, the bench rejected the plea saying that the petition had “no constitutional importance.”
Among the eight amici curie (impartial advisers of the court) appointed by the bench, constitution experts Mahmudul Islam, Ajmalul Hossain QC and Rokanuddin Mahmud opined that the uncontested winner provision was in no way unconstitutional.
On the other hand, three other amici curie – Dr Kamal Hossain, Barrister Rafique-Ul Huq and Badiul Alam Majumder – harshly questioned the January 5 election. They, however, did not term the RPO provision unconstitutional.
Mahmudul Islam also said the way the 10th parliamentary election had been held was not acceptable on moral grounds.
The bench said BNP Standing Committee member Moudud Ahmed expressed his inability to put forward his opinion while M Amir-Ul Islam could not address the court since he was abroad.
On the inclusion of “No” vote provision in the RPO, the bench said the court had no authority to direct the parliament to do so. It can only direct parliament when the legislature derails from the constitution.
The legislature would decide whether there was necessity to insert the provision to include “No” vote in ballot papers, the court said.
The Indian Supreme Court was able to direct the legislature to include “No” vote as such provision had already existed in the original election law. But Bangladesh has no such provision in its election law, the bench said.
High Court lawyers Shahriar Majid and Rokanuddin Mahmud filed the petition last year demanding the “No” vote system.
Redwan Ahmed Runjib, counsel for the petitioners, told the Dhaka Tribune that they would think about filing an appeal after getting certified copy of the judgment.
