Supreme Court
SC upholds ex-NSU trustee MA Kashem’ s bail; No bar to release
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the High Court order granting bail to ex-NSU trustee board member MA Kashem in a graft case.
A five-member bench of the Appellate Division led by Chief Justice Hasan Foyez Siddiqui passed the order rejecting the Anti-Corruption Commission's (ACC) plea to cancel his bail.
With this order, now there is no bar for MA Kashem to walk out of the jail, said ACC lawyer Advocate Khurshid Alam Khan.
Read more: HC order granting bail to ex-NSU trustee MA Kashem stayed by SC
Advocates Murad Reza, Shah Manjurul Haque and Barrister Syed Ahmed Raza appeared for the accused at the court.
On November 13, Chamber Judge of the Appellate Division stayed the HC order granting bail to MA Kashem and upheld that of another ex-trustee Rehana Rahman in the case.
The High Court (HC) on November 10 granted conditional bail to Kashem and Rehana in the case.
They were granted bail on condition that they will not leave the country and enter the the NSU campus without permission.
In August, the HC issued a rule seeking explanation as to why the two NSU trustee board members should not be granted bail in this case.
On May 22, the court ordered Shahbagh police to arrest four ex-NSU trustees after rejecting their anticipatory bail pleas in the case.
The two other accused trustees are- Benazir Ahmed and Muhammad Shahjahan.
On May 5, the ACC sued the chairman of the board of trustees of North South University (NSU) Azim Uddin Ahmed and five others for embezzling Tk 303.82 crore in the name of buying land for the campus.
Read more: HC grants conditional bail to 2 ex-NSU trustees
Another accused is- Managing director of Ashalaya Housing and Developers Limited Amin Mohamed Hilali.
ACC's Deputy Director Farid Ahmed Patwar filed the case.
The case states that over 9088 decimal land was bought in the name of permanent campus development of NSU with the consent of some members of the Board of Trustees bypassing the approval of the University Syndicate, University Grants Commission and the Ministry of Education.
They later withdrew cash from the buyer through cash checks in their own names and kept FDR in their own names.
They unjustly benefited themselves by committing illegal activities through misuse of power and embezzling university and government funds, according to the case.
In carrying out such illegal activities, they committed a punishable offence by resorting to fraud and forgery and exchanging commissions.
SC clears way for Nipun to serve as general secretary of Film Artistes’ Association
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday cleared the way for actress Nipun Akter to serve as the general secretary of the Bangladesh Film Artistes’ Association (BFAA).
A three-member bench of the Appellate Division led by Chief Justice Hasan Foyez Siddiqui passed the order staying the High Court (HC) verdict declaring actor Zayed Khan's candidacy for the post of general secretary in the election legal.
At the same time, the court accepted Nipun's leave to appeal petition against the verdict of the High Court allowing her to file an appeal.
Senior Advocate Ahsanul Karim and Nahid Sultana Juthi stood for Zayed while Senior Advocate Rokonuddin Mahmud and Barrister Mostafizur Rahman Khan for Nipun.
Read: Appellate Division asks Zayed, Nipun to follow Chamber Judge order
Earlier on March 6, Justice Obaidul Hassan, chamber judge of the Appellate Division stayed the HC order that validated Zayed as general secretary of the BFAA for four weeks.
The chamber judge also ordered status-quo over holding the post.
On March 2, the HC cleared the way for Zayed to serve as the general secretary of the BFFA after striking down the decision of the Election Appeal Board of the association.
Nipun again took the fight to the court and filed an appeal before the Appellate Division.
The association election was held on January 28.
Read: BFAA election: Chamber judge stays HC order after Nipun's appeal
Zayed was declared the winner for the general secretary post, after he defeated Nipun in a close contest.
But Nipun launched a legal fight challenging legality of Zayed's candidacy and accusing him of vote fraud.
High Court asks why DMP authority to ban rallies not illegal
The High Court (HC) today (October 30, 2022) issued a rule, asking why the provision empowering the police commissioner to ban rallies or meetings in the Dhaka metropolitan area should not be declared illegal and unconstitutional.
The HC bench of Justice Md Mozibur Rahman Miah and Justice Kazi Md Ejarul Haque Akondo passed the order following a writ petition.
Four people, including the law ministry secretary, home ministry secretary, and Dhaka Metropolitan Police Commissioner were made respondents to the rule.
Read more: HC issues rule on ethics code for news media
Advocate Abdul Momen Chowdhury appeared for the writ petitioner in the court. Attorney General AM Amin Uddin and Deputy Attorney General Arobinda Kumar Roy represented the state.
On October 20, Supreme Court lawyers Abdul Momen Chowdhury and KM Zabir, Chandpur Bar Association lawyer Selim Akbar, and two individuals Shah Nuruzzaman and Mohammad Yasin filed the writ petition challenging Section 29 of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police Ordinance 1976.
Section 29 states that the police commissioner may prohibit any public gathering or procession whenever needed and for the period that he/she considers necessary through written order for the maintenance of peace or public safety. But no such prohibition shall remain in force for more than 30 days without permission of the government.
Read More: BNP rally begins defying transport strike in Rangpur
Lawyer Abdul Momen Chowdhury said Section 29 of the ordinance conflicts with Article 37 of the constitution and goes against fundamental rights.
Meanwhile, the state counsels said public gatherings are not always prohibited by police, except when there is any possibility of chaos. If two political parties call rallies at the same venue, there might be chaos.
New High Court judges call on president at Bangabhaban
The newly appointed judges of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh met the President Abdul Hamid at Bangabhaban this evening.
The newly appointed judges are Justice Mohammad Shawkat Ullah Chowdhury, Justice Md Atabullah, Justice Biswajit Debnath, Justice Md Aminul Islam, Justice Md Ali Reza, Justice Md Bazlur Rahman, Justice KM Imrul Kayesh, Justice Fahmida Quader, Justice Md Bashir Ullah, Justice SM Masud Hossain Dolan and Justice AKM Rabiul Hasan.
President's Press Secretary Zainal Abedin said in the briefing that congratulating the new judges of the High Court, President Hamid hoped that the new judges would utilize their talent and experience so that the people get justice quickly.
Mentioning the high expectations of the people towards the judiciary, the President stressed on increasing the use of modern technology in the judicial process to meet the expectations of the people.
Secretaries of the President were present at this time.
Also read: Chief Justice presents annual report on JSC to President Hamid
Apex court stays HC order on govt officials' arrest
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Thursday stayed till October 23 the High Court's order scrapping the provision of prior permission for the arrest of government employees.
A six-member bench of the Appellate Division, headed by Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddique, passed the order in the wake of an appeal by the government against the HC order.
The Appellate Division also asked the government to file a leave-to-appeal petition against the HC ruling by October 23.
Read: Chamber Court declines to stay HC order on govt officials' arrest
Attorney General AM Amin Uddin appeared for the state, while the writ petitioner's lawyer Manzill Murshid opposed the government's appeal.
On Wednesday, the Appellate Division chamber judge refused to stay the HC ruling and sent the appeal to its full bench for Thursday's hearing.
On August 25, the HC scrapped the provision of the Public Service Act, 2018, describing it as "unconstitutional".
"The Constitution is the country’s main law and as per the Constitution, everyone is equal in the eyes of the law," the court observed.
"A section has been given special facilities by enacting the provision of getting prior permission to arrest government employees, which is sheer discrimination and violence of articles 26, 27 and 31 of the Constitution," the HC bench said.
On November 14, 2018, a gazette was issued on Public Service Act, 2018. It was published on September 26, 2019, and came into effect on October 1, 2019.
Read: No prior permission needed to arrest govt officials for criminal offence
According to Section 41(1) of the Act, prior permission is needed from the government or higher authorities to arrest a government officer in a criminal case.
On October 14, 2019, a writ petition was filed challenging the legality of Section 41 (1) of the Act.
Advocates Sarwar Ahad Chowdhury, Eklas Uddin Bhuiya and Mahbubul Islam filed the writ petition on behalf of the Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh, a non-profit.
On October 21, 2019, the HC issued a rule asking the government to explain as to why Section 41 (1) of the Public Service Act should not be declared "illegal and contradictory to articles 26(1) and (2), 27 and 31 of the Constitution".
How India plans to blow up two illegal skyscrapers near Delhi
In nine seconds flat, two skyscrapers built illegally in the city of Noida near the Indian capital nine years ago will be razed by a controlled explosion on Sunday afternoon.
India's Supreme Court, in August last year, ordered the demolition of the 40-storey twin towers -- Apex and Ceyane -- built by private developer Supertech for violation of various building norms.
The twin towers will be India's largest ever highrises to be imploded at 2.30 pm (local time), using 3,700kg of explosives.
"I am getting goosebumps. I am a little nervous but confident as well," Utkarsh Mehta of Edifice Engineering, the company entrusted with the demolition job, told the local media this morning.
Read: Protests in India against release of 11 convicted rapists
Mehta said the explosion would trigger vibrations like that of a minor earthquake, which will be felt in a 30-40 metre radius of the twin towers.
"The dust will take 15-20 minutes to settle down but we would need at least three to four months to clear the debris. Anti-smog guns have been pressed into action to clear the Noida sky," he said.
Local civic authorities have already ensured the evacuation of residents of all housing societies in the vicinity of the twin towers. Stray dogs have also been shifted to animal shelters, officials said.
"The nearby Noida Expressway will be shut for 45 minutes for the demolition. Hospitals in the city have been put on alert and 8-10 ambulances kept at standby in case of any untoward situation," a police officer said.
Demolitions of highrises are rare in India. Two years ago, authorities in the southern state of Kerala razed two luxury waterfront highrises for flouting environmental norms.
Houses of Speaker, Dy Speaker on Parliament premises are legal: SC
The appellate division of the Supreme Court on Tuesday annulled a High Court order that declared the houses built for the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker on the premises of Jatiya Sangsad as illegal.
A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddque, passed the order in the wake of a writ petition.
Barrister Tanjib Ul Alam represented the petitioner’s side, while Additional Attorney General Sheikh Mohammad Morshed appeared for the state during the hearing.
In 2003, Bangladesh Poribesh Andolon (BAPA) and the Institute of Architects filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the legality of the construction of the two houses on the Parliament premises, citing violation of the original design by renowned architect Louis I Kahn.
Also read: HC forms expert committee to prevent plagiarism in PhD thesis
Construction work began in 2002.
On June 21, 2004, the High Court passed an order on the petition saying the construction of the new buildings were illegal and directed to declare the National Parliament House as "national heritage".
Later, the appellate division suspended the High Court’s order after an appeal from the state and granted them leave to appeal against the order.
Subsequently, the state's lawyers submitted a regular appeal against the High Court’s order. In the meantime, the construction of the residential buildings of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker was completed.
Also read: HC directs to protect 952 ponds in Rajshahi city
In 2015, during a hearing on the appeal, the appellate division asked the state to present the original design of Louis I Kahn, which it did later.
High Court gets 11 new additional judges
Eleven new additional judges have been appointed to the High Court Division of Supreme Court.
The Law Ministry issued a gazette notification in this regard on Sunday.
President Abdul Hamid made the appointments for two years in line with article 98 of the Constitutions, according to the gazette notification.
Also read: JU students Sumaiya-Meem will able to sit for the exam: High Court
The eleven news judges are—District and Sessions Judge Shawkat Ali Chowdhury, Cumilla District and Sessions Judge Mohammad Atabullah, Deputy Attorney General Biswajit Debnath, Deputy Attorney General Aminul Islam, Advocate of Supreme Court Mohammad Ali Reza, Registrar General of the Supreme Court Mohammad Bazlur Rahman, Dhaka Metropolitan Magistrate KM Imrul Kayes, Tangail District and Sessions Judge Fahmida Quader, Deputy Attorney General Bashir Ullah, Advocate of Supreme Court SM Masud Hossain Dolon and Advocate of Bangladesh Supreme Court AKM Rabiul Hasan.
Also read: Dispose child custody cases in 6 months: High Court
Mohammad Saifur Rahman, registrar of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, said the additional judges will take oath at the Supreme Court Judges Lounge around 4:30 pm today.
Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddique will administer the oath.
Biden's realism approach runs head-on into liberal pressure
On restoring access to abortion, President Joe Biden says his hands are tied without more Democratic senators. Declaring a public health emergency on the matter has downsides, his aides say. And as for gun violence, Biden has been clear about the limits of what he can do on his own.
“There’s a Constitution,” Biden said from the South Lawn in late May. “I can’t dictate this stuff.”
Throughout this century, presidents have often pushed aggressively to extend the boundaries of executive power. Biden talks more about its limits.
When it comes to the thorniest issues confronting his administration, the instinct from Biden and his White House is often to speak about what he cannot do, citing constraints imposed by the courts or insufficient support in a Congress controlled by his own party — though barely.
He injects a heavy dose of reality in speaking to an increasingly restive Democratic base, which has demanded action on issues such as abortion and voting rights before the November elections.
White House officials and the president's allies say that approach typifies a leader who has always promised to be honest with Americans, including about how expansive his powers really are.
But Biden's realpolitik tendencies are colliding with an activist base agitating for a more aggressive party leader — both in tone and substance. Although candidate Biden sold himself as the person who best knew the ways of Washington, he nonetheless is hamstrung by the same obstacles that have bedeviled his predecessors.
“I think that if you hesitate from important actions like this just because of a legal challenge, then you would do nothing,” said Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., who has been pressing for more administrative actions on abortion. “People all across the country are expecting us — the leaders — to do something.”
Biden’s cautionary approach could be to protect himself if the White House falls short — like Democrats did in negotiating a party-line spending package centered on the social safety net and climate provisions. That sweeping effort had been steadily thwarted due to resistance from two moderate Democrats, one of them West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who on Thursday scuttled for the time being a scaled-back effort that focused on climate and taxes.
That development prompted calls from Democratic senators for Biden to unilaterally declare a climate emergency. In a statement Friday while in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Biden pledged to take “strong executive action to meet this moment” on climate. But in recent weeks, that gap between “yes, we can” and “no, we can’t” has been most glaring on abortion.
Since the Supreme Court last month overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling from 1973 with its constitutional protections for abortion, the White House has come under considerable pressure to try to maintain access to abortion in conservative states that are set to outlaw the procedure.
For instance, advocates have implored Biden to look into establishing abortion clinics on federal lands. They have asked the administration to help transport women seeking abortions to a state that offers the procedure. And Democratic lawmakers are pressing the White House to declare a public health emergency.
Without rejecting the ideas completely, White House aides have expressed skepticism about such requests. And even as he signed an executive order last week to begin addressing the issue, Biden had one clear, consistent message: that he could not do this on his own, shifting attention to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Read:Biden's Mideast trip aimed at reassuring wary leaders
“The only way we can secure a woman’s right to choose and the balance that existed is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade as federal law,” Biden said shortly after the court struck down Roe. “No executive action from the president can do that.”
Shortly after declaring that the filibuster — a Senate rule that requires 60 votes for most legislation to advance — should not apply for abortion and privacy measures, Biden acknowledged during a meeting with Democratic governors that his newfound position would not make a difference, at least not right away.
“The filibuster should not stand in the way of us being able to do that,” Biden said of writing the protections of Roe into federal law. “But right now, we don’t have the votes in the Senate to change the filibuster."
Biden, who served for 36 years in the Senate, is an institutionalist to his core and has tried to operate under the constraints of those institutions — unlike his predecessor, Donald Trump, who repeatedly pushed the boundaries of executive power.
But some advocates don't want to hear from Biden about what he can’t do.
Renee Bracey Sherman, founder and executive director of the group We Testify, which advocates for women who have had abortions, said the administration should proceed with a public health emergency even if it's eventually blocked by the courts.
“It tells those people who need abortions that the president is trying to help them, and that the thing that’s stopping him is the court, not himself, or his own projections on what could possibly happen,” she said, later adding: “The fact that he’s an institutionalist and cannot look around and see the institutions around him are crumbling is the problem.”
Democratic lawmakers have also continued to prod senior administration officials behind the scenes. In a virtual meeting this past week, Chu urged Xavier Becerra, the health and human services secretary, to have the administration enact a public health emergency. Proponents of the idea say it would unlock certain powers and resources to not only expand access to abortion but to protect doctors who provide them.
Though Becerra did not rule out the idea, he told Chu and other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus that the administration had two main questions: How would the administration replenish money for the public health emergency fund and what would this move actually accomplish?
The skepticism has not deterred Democratic lawmakers. But some of the most ardent proponents of expansive executive actions on abortion have similarly cautioned their voters and activists to be realistic.
“It’s unrealistic to think that they have the power and the authority to protect access to abortion services in every part of this country because of what the Supreme Court has done," said Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn.
In one sense, the recent success on gun s was a validation of Biden’s art-of-the-possible approach, advocates say. Rather than promising what he could not achieve, Biden instead spoke of his limitations and cautioned that any substantive changes would require the support of at least 10 Senate Republicans — a goal that seemed implausible at the start.
That culminated this past week with a ceremony marking the signing of the first substantial gun restrictions into law in roughly three decades.
“I think that the president has struck the absolute right balance,” said John Feinblatt, the president of Everytown for Gun Safety.
Concerns about the limitations on Biden’s executive powers aren’t mere hypotheticals. His administration’s efforts to tame the coronavirus pandemic, for example, were repeatedly foiled by the courts, including a requirement to wear masks on mass transit and a vaccination mandate for companies with at least 100 workers.
Then-President Barack Obama sounded similar warnings when confronted by immigration activists urging him to use his power to issue a deportation reprieve for millions of young immigrants who did not have legal status in the U.S.
Obama in 2012 unilaterally enacted the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which is still standing today. Two years later, Obama more fully embraced the pen-and-phone strategy, signaling to Congress that he would not hesitate to use executive orders if lawmakers continued to imperil his domestic agenda.
“Nobody thinks he’s got a magic wand here. Folks understand there are limitations,” said Leah Greenberg, co-founder and co-executive director of the Indivisible Project. “What they want to see is him treating this like the crisis it is for folks in red states losing access to abortion.”
Texas Supreme Court blocks order that resumed abortions
The Texas Supreme Court blocked a lower court order late Friday night that said clinics could continue performing abortions, just days after some doctors had resumed seeing patients after the fall of Roe v. Wade.
It was not immediately clear whether Texas clinics that had resumed seeing patients this week would halt services again. A hearing is scheduled for later this month.
The whiplash of Texas clinics turning away patients, rescheduling them, and now potentially canceling appointments again — all in the span of a week — illustrated the confusion and scrambling taking place across the country since Roe was overturned.
An order by a Houston judge earlier this week had reassured some clinics they could temporarily resume abortions up to six weeks into pregnancy. That was quickly followed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asking the state’s highest court, which is stocked with nine Republican justices, to temporarily put the order on hold.
“These laws are confusing, unnecessary, and cruel,” said Marc Hearron, attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, after the order was issued Friday night.
READ: Post-Roe, states struggle with conflicting abortion bans
Clinics in Texas had stopped performing abortions in the state of nearly 30 million people after the U.S. Supreme Court last week overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the constitutional right to abortion. Texas had technically left an abortion ban on the books for the past 50 years while Roe was in place.
A copy of Friday's order was provided by attorneys for Texas clinics. It could not immediately be found on the court’s website.
Abortion providers and patients across the country have been struggling to navigate the evolving legal landscape around abortion laws and access.
In Florida, a law banning abortions after 15 weeks went into effect Friday, the day after a judge called it a violation of the state constitution and said he would sign an order temporarily blocking the law next week. The ban could have broader implications in the South, where Florida has wider access to the procedure than its neighbors.
Abortion rights have been lost and regained in the span of a few days in Kentucky. A so-called trigger law imposing a near-total ban on the procedure took effect last Friday, but a judge blocked the law Thursday, meaning the state’s only two abortion providers can resume seeing patients — for now.
The legal wrangling is almost certain to continue to cause chaos for Americans seeking abortions in the near future, with court rulings able to upend access at a moment's notice and an influx of new patients from out of state overwhelming providers.
Even when women travel outside states with abortion bans in place, they may have fewer options to end their pregnancies as the prospect of prosecution follows them.
Planned Parenthood of Montana this week stopped providing medication abortions to patients who live in states with bans “to minimize potential risk for providers, health center staff, and patients in the face of a rapidly changing landscape.”
Planned Parenthood North Central States, which offers the procedure in Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska, is telling its patients that they must take both pills in the regimen in a state that allows abortions.
The use of abortion pills has been the most common method to end a pregnancy since 2000, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone — the main drug used in medication abortions. Taken with misoprostol, a drug that causes cramping that empties the womb, it constitutes the abortion pill.
“There’s a lot of confusion and concern that the providers may be at risk, and they are trying to limit their liability so they can provide care to people who need it," said Dr. Daniel Grossman, who directs the research group Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California San Francisco.
Emily Bisek, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood North Central States, said that in an “unknown and murky” legal environment, they decided to tell patients they must be in a state where it is legal to complete the medication abortion -- which requires taking two drugs 24 to 48 hours apart. She said most patients from states with bans are expected to opt for surgical abortions.
Access to the pills has become a key battle in abortion rights, with the Biden administration preparing to argue states can’t ban a medication that has received FDA approval.
Kim Floren, who operates an abortion fund in South Dakota called Justice Empowerment Network, said the development would further limit women's choices.
“The purpose of these laws anyways is to scare people,” Floren said of states’ bans on abortions and telemedicine consultations for medication abortions. “The logistics to actually enforcing these is a nightmare, but they rely on the fact that people are going to be scared.”
A South Dakota law took effect Friday that threatens a felony punishment for anyone who prescribes medication for an abortion without a license from the South Dakota Board of Medical and Osteopathic Examiners.
In Alabama, Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office said it is reviewing whether people or groups could face prosecution for helping women fund and travel to out-of-state abortion appointments.
Yellowhammer Fund, an Alabama-based group that helps low-income women cover abortion and travel costs, said it is pausing operation for two weeks because of the lack of clarity under state law.
“This is a temporary pause, and we’re going to figure out how we can legally get you money and resources and what that looks like,” said Kelsea McLain, Yellowhammer’s health care access director.
Laura Goodhue, executive director of the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, said staff members at its clinics have seen women driving from as far as Texas without stopping or making an appointment. Women who are past 15 weeks are being asked to leave their information and promised a call back when a judge signs the order temporarily blocking the restriction, she said.
Still, there is concern that the order may be only temporary and the law may again go into effect later, creating additional confusion.
“It’s terrible for patients,” she said. “We are really nervous about what is going to happen.”