সংসদে রুলিং ॥ ব্যবস্থা নেবেন প্রধান বিচারপতি ॥ এদেশ পাকিস্তান নয়, বাংলাদেশ -স্পিকার অ্যাডভোকেট আবদুল হামিদ

Dhaka Times Desk For several days, there has been a storm of discussion and criticism about the speech of the Speaker and the judge. Speaker Advocate Abdul Hamid has ruled that Justice AHM Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik has violated Article 78(1) of the Constitution by making adverse comments on the issues discussed in the National Assembly yesterday on June 18.

According to electric media and newspaper sources, however, the indecent behavior of a judge cannot disturb the good relations existing between the three organs of the state, Speaker Abdul Hamid said, this country is not Pakistan, Bangladesh. Speaker Advocate Abdul Hamid claimed this incident as sad, unwanted, unintended and personal attack and said that there is doubt whether any sane person can utter the comments that the judge made about the Parliament and me. It was expected that he (AHM Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik) would take all the issues to heart and take appropriate steps to avoid excessive speech. But he didn't. He said these things in the ruling given at the beginning of the day's agenda in the National Parliament on June 18. At that time, the Supreme Judicial Council expressed its agreement with the proposal of the National Assembly regarding the removal of Justice AHM Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik, but keeping in mind the larger interest, Speaker Advocate Abdul Hamid requested the parliament members to withdraw this proposal. At the same time, Speaker Advocate Abdul Hamid called upon the Chief Justice to take the next step by leaving the whole matter under the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice to prevent the recurrence of such incidents. He said that taking drastic steps like forming the Supreme Judicial Council would not be appropriate. However, the Speaker said that the measures taken by the Chief Justice regarding such behavior of a judge will have the support of the National Assembly. Prime Minister and Parliament Leader Sheikh Hasina was absent at this time.

In a long six-page written speech, Speaker Advocate Abdul Hamid said that the constitution is the foundation of the state. Parliament is the main pillar of the constitution. This Parliament elects the President. The President and the Prime Minister appoint the Chief Justice. It is in this manner that the sovereignty of the people is established. The constitution has specified the responsibilities of each of us. All of us will uphold the constitution from our respective positions, it is expected by the countrymen. The speaker said, hopefully the debate will end with my speech. Explaining the entire incident, Advocate Abdul Hamid said, "I said something in the context of the speech of some parliamentarians in the Great National Parliament on May 29. The subject of my speech was mainly the relationship of the people with the Parliament, the Courts and the Executive and their welfare. Some general comments were immediately made in the wake of the MPs' speeches. Later, on June 5, the internet and electronic media reported that a judge of the High Court bench had commented that my speech was treasonous and had made several accusations and unsolicited comments against me and the national parliament. On the same day during the Parliament, some of your senior members spoke on the point of order demanding action against the Honorable Judge and even the removal of the Supreme Judicial Council as per Article 96 of the Constitution in order to protect the sovereignty of the Parliament. All the members present supported the statement which was published and circulated in the media. On that day, the Deputy Speaker, who was acting as the Speaker, discussed the matter with me and said that further action would be taken. He said, in view of the adverse comments about the Speaker and the Parliament, you expressed strong anger and raised various demands as an immediate response to this in order not to violate Article 78(1) of the Constitution, to protect the sovereignty of the Parliament and to keep the Parliament above controversy. In fact, that was normal at the time. I respect your sentiments and express my sincere gratitude to you. Advocate Abdul Hamid said, it is admirable that many countries of the world have been making continuous efforts for hundreds of years to build inter-relationship and coordination, mutual respect, proper check and balance between the three organs of the state. Because we all know that democracy is not a system only, it is a culture too. We are also trying to achieve that democratic culture in this great Parliament. He said, some days ago, there was some discussion in the parliament about one of our country's professors, distinguished educationist Abdullah Abu Saeed. Whenever the correct interpretation of his statement came to the attention of the Parliament, the Parliament expressed its regret. Unnecessary parts have been expanded. We hoped that the judge would take all the issues to heart and take appropriate steps to avoid excessive statements. But he didn't. Advocate Abdul Hamid said, the issues raised by His Excellency the High Court judge based on my speech and the subsequent discussion and criticism are really sad and unintended. At first I thought not to make any statement or comment on this. Everyone will understand the matter at their own discretion. But later I saw that it involved me and the Great Parliament. If I do not clarify my position, many people may have a wrong idea about the Great Parliament and me. In this context, with a quote from Rabindranath, he said, 'If a beggar says something about something that is in use with others, whose need and value should be determined truthfully, it would be absolutely disrespectful to remain silent.' Finally decided - I will clarify my point on this. The speaker said that on that day i.e. last May 29, Member of Parliament Shahriar Alam had requested the law minister to bring the matter of extension of time for shifting the office of road department to another place. I said, there is no law minister, maybe he would have looked into the matter. The essence of what I said next is that we all have respect for Your Honor. The court is completely independent and impartial. The issue of road building is a sensitive issue. The three organs of the state legislative, judicial and executive are complementary to each other. They are there to support each other. A sudden removal of this building will paralyze its activities, which may harm the government. I made the request on that day that these issues should be considered by the court. I also mentioned that it would be better if it was resolved through the discussion of the judiciary with the government. Finally, I will end my speech at this stage by saying that there should be an attitude of cooperation between all the organs of the state. The Speaker said, later that day, when Member of Parliament Moin Uddin Khan Badal spoke on court related issues, I jokingly said that after the term of my Speakership is over, I will have to wear a black coat and go to the court again. So you have to talk by calculation. Got into a problem again. I may not get relief while handling the case. After that, while highlighting the issue of everyone's accountability to the people, I said that if the laws passed by the parliamentarians in the parliament go against the people, then in the end the people can stand against us. If the people of the country are angry with the court's judgment, then one day people may stand against the judiciary. Similarly, there is a history of people standing up if a government behaves in a dictatorial manner. Everyone needs to think. I have talked about working for the welfare of the country and people by giving up self-conceit. There is no mention of any court or any case or any judge. Basically, I have talked about an idea of what can happen if there is any disruption in the work of the three organs of the state.

Speaker Abdul Hamid said, "In view of my speech in Parliament on May 29, I have doubts whether any sane person can utter the comments about parliament and me that a judge of the High Court violated Article 78(1) of the Constitution on June 5." First of all, he said, my speech is treason. I don't understand if any of my above words fall under treason. Before raising the charge of treason, what is treason, what act falls under the level of treason, who can determine the issue of treason, if the wise judge would have given his wisdom. Advocate Abdul Hamid said, I learned through the newspaper, that day the court judge said, 'The court is working independently. There is no pressure from the Minister, State Minister or any other institution in the work of the Judiciary Department. But the speaker said in the parliament, if the law minister was present, he could have been asked to take action regarding the property of the road building. So does the speaker think that the judiciary is under the direction of the law minister? He said, it is assumed that the learned judge did not listen to my speech properly and he was not able to show his wisdom in the comments he made. In fact, on that day, the member of parliament wanted to raise the issue of giving time to remove the road building to the law minister through the speaker. As the Law Minister was not present in Parliament at that time, I informed the Parliament about the matter and said, 'Maybe he would have looked into the matter if he had. That's all I said. I have asked the law minister to take measures regarding road construction - I have not said anything like that.

Defending himself, the speaker said, "My knowledge, talent, qualification and my certificate as a lawyer have been ridiculed." I often say, I am a person with less education. Responding to the call of Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in the 60s, I came to him and got involved in the struggle for the freedom of the people of this country as a student. Along with politics, I have worked as a lawyer for 37 years. Practiced in the High Court as a member of the Supreme Court Bar. I served as a lawyer in the courts of former Chief Justice MM Ruhul Amin, ABM Khairul Haque and the present Chief Justice. I may not have read big books but I have been reading the words of common people for the past 54 years. I have learned a lot throughout my life even from illiterate people. Maybe because I can read their mind, I got a place in their mind. The people elected me as a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan in the 1970 elections. For the welfare of the people, I have been elected as a member of the National Parliament after repeatedly passing the election test taken by the people. He said, I got the responsibility to work as speaker for the second time. But as a speaker I am not a single entity. There are many members of this parliament who are highly educated and richer than me in terms of knowledge and dignity. Still, the government party, the opposition party and other parties unanimously elected me as the speaker. When my knowledge and qualifications are questioned, it raises questions about the qualifications of all members of Parliament. The learned judge would have done well to think more deeply before making such a statement. The learned Judge made adverse observations on many other points which I do not think it necessary to mention here. Advocate Abdul Hamid said, based on the comments of the court judge, many people, especially the newspapers, have mentioned that it has brought the judiciary department face to face with the Parliament. It is not really an antagonism between the Parliament and the Judiciary. These are some disrespectful comments and personal attacks by a judge about Parliament. It would not be right to involve the entire judiciary. We all have to remember that this country is not Pakistan but Bangladesh. I say again, Bangladesh. Under the leadership of Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, independent-sovereign Bangladesh was established in 1971 through the Great War of Liberation at the cost of millions of lives. The three parts of the state have a relationship of deep harmony and trust developed over 40 years. Due to this good relationship, this country is moving forward today after going through many ups and downs. As a Member of Parliament and as a Speaker, I have always believed that the three organs of the state - the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive are complementary to each other and independent in their respective fields. In this case the methods may be different but the aim and objective is the same and that is to achieve the welfare of the people at all times. This is the hope of the countrymen that this relationship should be more unbreakable for the welfare of the country and the nation. He said, on June 5, members of parliament formed the Supreme Judicial Council and demanded the removal of the judge and proposed to send a resolution to His Excellency the President.

In support of your proposal, I humbly say that the misconduct of a judge cannot disturb the good relations existing between the three arms of the state. As guardians of this great parliament, we, the representatives of sixteen crore people, cannot judge the entire judiciary by the behavior of one individual. If you all decide it becomes the bindings for me. As I do not think that on the whole it would be advisable to take such drastic measures, I humbly request you to agree with me and withdraw the motion you have put forward in Parliament. The speaker said, I hope that honorable members of parliament, judges and learned lawyers of the judiciary, honorable members of the executive department, honorable representatives of civil society, honorable intellectuals, honorable journalists and people of all professions, above all, the immense public of my highly respected and beloved country, regarding the comments related to the Parliament of Justice. Evaluate at your own discretion. At the same time, we will support the measures taken by the Chief Justice considering what can be done in this kind of behavior of the court. As a result, it may be possible to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.

The speech of the speaker is very elegant and exemplary - Prof. Emajuddin Ahmed

In response to the speech of High Court Justice AHM Shamsuddin Chowdhury, Speaker of the Parliament Abdul Hamid Advocate's ruling, the former VC of Dhaka University and prominent political scientist Professor Dr. Emajuddin Ahmed said the speaker's ruling is very elegant and exemplary in resolving the crisis between the law department and the judiciary. In the speech of the judge, the Speaker has shown magnanimity by not giving a ruling so far. Without taking any action against that judge, the Speaker taught what treason is.

He said that the three pillars of the state, the law, the judiciary and the administration govern the country by respecting each other. But a judge's statement about the Speaker is undesirable. Parliament is sovereign in a parliamentary democratic state. Parliamentarians are the representatives of the people in a democracy. And the guardian of the parliament members is the speaker. In that sense, the speaker is the guardian of the people. The statement made by the judge about that speaker is in one sense treason.
Professor Emajuddin said that the judge's statement about the Speaker was terribly indecent. A judge can make such comments if he is in a position of taste. It is unimaginable in a civilized country that a private judge can give a speech. If the judge's self-esteem is severe, he should move to another place, he said, AHM Shamsuddin Chowdhury will apologize to the Speaker, or move to another place - I hope that.

What Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik said that day..

A bench headed by Justice AHM Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik of the High Court criticized Speaker Abdul Hamid on June 5. He termed the Speaker's statement as tantamount to treason. Earlier on May 29, this criticism was made in the context of Speaker Abdul Hamid's statement about the Judiciary Department and a pending case in Parliament.

Speaker Abdul Hamid said, the court is impartial and independent. But it will take years for the justice of the people of the country and the judiciary will take a hasty decision as it is their own business, it does not look good. Speaker Abdul Hamid requested to review the High Court's order to release the Supreme Court's land to the Roads and Highways Department and said that people can stand against the judiciary if they are angry with the court's verdict. Besides, it was also commented in the parliament that day that if there was a law minister, he would have asked to take action.

The contempt of court case filed against the Supreme Court for not returning the land came up in the High Court's docket on June 5. At one stage of the hearing, Manzil Morsed, the plaintiff's lawyer in this case, published in various national dailies on May 30, three reports titled 'Speaker warned the judiciary', 'Speaker's warning against the government and the judiciary', 'People can stand up if the judiciary behaves autocratically'. pointed out Manzil told the court that Parliament has a privilege, criticizing a pending matter on that privilege. Discussions have been conducted with wrong information in such a way that it seems that the court has done injustice by ruling. He has incited people against the judiciary by discussing such things. Reading the newspaper reports, it seems that there has been criticism in the parliament. Not a discussion. The speaker said that the verdict was rushed.

At that time, Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury said that the speaker is a lawyer. He should not have the word advocate. We will refer the bar council to take action in this regard. The speaker said, we have given a hasty judgment. But there are many issues that have been settled within three months. And in the matter of road building, the rule was issued a year and a half ago. He (Speaker) has not practiced in the High Court so he has no experience in writ cases.

In view of a statement by the lawyer of the plaintiff, Justice Manik addressed the speaker and said, little knowledge is dangerous. The dignity of the Supreme Court does not mean only the dignity of the Supreme Court, it is related to the dignity of the people of the entire country. The Supreme Court should give a verdict in consultation with the government - such statements are also treasonous. If the Supreme Court has to discuss with the government and give a verdict. Couldn't be a more shameless comment. He (Speaker) seems not to know about 'Independence of Judiciary'.

Regarding another statement given by the Speaker, the judge said, Is this Supreme Court under the Law Minister? Regulated by the Minister of Law? The Supreme Court is also a separate body (institution) like the Parliament. The Supreme Court is not a body controlled by the Law Minister. This knowledge should be there. It is a constitutional body. Complain to the Law Minister, and the Law Minister will punish us, whip us. Does the law minister run this court? Are we servants of the law minister (servant)?

In view of another statement, the court said that people have been incited against the judiciary by such criticism. Inciting the people against the Supreme Court is sedition. Because of such incitement we have summoned many more. Accused of treason. We are charged with treason for talking about the rise of a minor third force. And this is a much more serious crime than that. In view of another statement of the Speaker, Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury said, I did not know that the Speaker was so ignorant. He is the head of the parliament, he should know that no minister controls the judges. He has no knowledge of the constitution.
At this time, Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury Nurul Islam addressed Sujan MP and said, Mr. Sujan, can the Law Minister take any action against us? The court said at one point, the speaker said I am Hanu Re - is this parliamentary language? Can the speaker participate in any debate? He is the Presiding Officer of Parliament. He cannot participate in any debate. He himself broke the rules of Parliament. Parliamentary privileges have been completely misused. He broke the parliamentary rules and debated the issues pending in the parliament. I've seen him talk a lot more nonsense before. Whether he knows the parliamentary procedure - that too is questionable today.

The judge addressed the former law minister Matin Khosru and said, what Matin Sahib, you were the law minister. Was the High Court under your control? Would you tell us to wear bandages? Why is the speaker so ignorant? The number three important person of the state is so ignorant about the constitution. After the president and prime minister of the state, why is he so ignorant? His ignorance is inexcusable. Matin Khosru said, according to the principle of separation of powers, each department of the state is independent in its own sphere. The Supreme Court is constitutionally supreme. The court said that the conflict between the Parliament and the Supreme Court was created by him. Such conflicts could be harmful to the state - he should have known that. What was the need to raise it in Parliament? The court cited some books written on the British Parliament and said that he is the presiding officer of the Parliament. He cannot participate in any debate inside and outside the Parliament. You have to study to know them.

At one point, Matin Khosru said, don't say it anymore. Speaker is also an institution. The court said that a person who cannot maintain the dignity of this post has no right to hold it. Khosru said that Speaker Abdul Hamid is a lawyer and a very senior member of Parliament. Then the High Court said, he participated in the debate. According to law he cannot participate in any debate. He started the discussion. We were shocked by his statement. He cannot abuse immunity. He knows we can't make him stand in the dock. He seriously undermined his dignity. We are completely bewildered by his statement. At this time, Khosru said that the speaker is a symbol of parliament. The High Court said, to be that symbol, there must be qualification. Education is to know. He participated in discussions on pending matters. He should have seated that MP. He did not do that, he himself participated in the discussion. Matin Khosru said, we should not exaggerate. It is good for the state and the people. The court said, he is the one who did the bad thing.

Acting Attorney General MK Rahman participated in the hearing at this stage. He said, there are three parts of the state. Judiciary, Executive and Parliament. Each part has to fulfill its responsibilities within its own jurisdiction. The High Court said, he gave the statement without knowing it. After participating in the hearing, Advocate Anisul Haque said in an emotional voice, "My Lord, you (Judge AHM Shamsuddin Chowdhury) are a freedom fighter." I am the child of a freedom fighter. You have said a lot about my request to you as the son of a freedom fighter, please end the matter here in the larger interest of the state. At the same time Matin Khosru and MK Rahman also stood up. Then the High Court started giving orders.
According to the order, the discussion in the Parliament has been published in almost all the newspapers. A Member of Parliament raised the matter on a point of order which is pending in court. It is very sad that the speaker who is the number three person in the state has participated in the discussion. According to the Rules of Parliament, the Speaker is not allowed to participate in any kind of debate. He will only run the Parliament. It is established in law all over the world that there can be no discussion in Parliament on pending matters. At this time, Anisul Haque stood up and said, "My Lord, I understand that there is a lot of trouble in your mind." Please end the matter here.

After that, the order of the High Court further said, "We are very disappointed with what happened that day." We want to make it clear that the Supreme Court, like the other two organs of the state, is a constitutional organ. The Supreme Court is independent. We are not led by any minister. We are accountable only to our conscience and the Creator. We are not accountable to the government or any minister. We do not give orders for our own interests, we give orders for the interests of the people. Consolidation of Supreme Court seats is necessary in public interest. Because if the space is not reduced, it will not be possible to appoint new judges, and the tangle of cases will not end. In 1961, the road building was part of the Supreme Court. In 1978, the road was built there during the military rule. The order said, we will rise above fear and perform our duties independently. We will not do anything that will paralyze the functioning of the government. We hope that the work of Roads and Highways Department will proceed properly. We hope the Speaker will show respect to the Supreme Court.