Legal notice seeks revocation of oath taken on January 3

A legal notice has been served on the authorities concerned to cancel or withdraw the oath taken by lawmakers elected in 11th national parliamentary election. It claims that the oath-taking was in clear violation of the Constitution. Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) secretary barrister AM Mahbub Uddin Khokon sent the legal notice, on behalf of advocate Md Taherul Islam Tawhid, to the Jatiya Sangsad Speaker, chief election commissioner and Cabinet secretary yesterday.

 In the notice, the lawyer urged the respondents to cancel the oath taken by the newly elected lawmakers.  Otherwise, appropriate legal action would be taken against the respondents, he said. The legal action would be taken if the oath-taking held on January 3 was not cancelled or withdrawn by 9:30am on January 13, according to the legal notice.

 The notice said that the oath-taking had taken place in violation of Articles 123(3) and 148 (3) of the Constitution as the tenure of the 10th Parliament was yet to expire.

 Article 123(3) of the Constitution says: “A general election of members of Parliament shall be held in the case of a dissolution by reason of the expiration of its term, within the period of ninety days preceding such dissolution; and in the case of a dissolution otherwise than by reason of such expiration, within ninety days after such dissolution: Provided that the persons elected at a general election under sub-clause (a) shall not assume office as members of Parliament except after the expiration of the term referred to therein.”

 Article 148 (3) stipulates: “Where under this Constitution a person is required to make an oath before he enters upon an office, he shall be deemed to have entered upon the office immediately after he makes the oath.”  The legal notice said that the 10th Parliament, which first sat on January 29, 2014, still existed and would continue to do so till January 28, 2019 as per Article 72(3) of the Constitution.  Until that period expires, the oath and assumption of office by any person would be absurd, it stated.

Legal notice seeks revocation of oath taken on January 3

A legal notice has been served on the authorities concerned to cancel or withdraw the oath taken by lawmakers elected in 11th national parliamentary election. It claims that the oath-taking was in clear violation of the Constitution. Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) secretary barrister AM Mahbub Uddin Khokon sent the legal notice, on behalf of advocate Md Taherul Islam Tawhid, to the Jatiya Sangsad Speaker, chief election commissioner and Cabinet secretary yesterday. In the notice, the lawyer urged the respondents to cancel the oath taken by the newly elected lawmakers. Otherwise, appropriate legal action would be taken against the respondents, he said. The legal action would be taken if the oath-taking held on January 3 was not cancelled or withdrawn by 9:30am on January 13, according to the legal notice. The notice said that the oath-taking had taken place in violation of Articles 123(3) and 148 (3) of the Constitution as the tenure of the 10th Parliament was yet to expire. Article 123(3) of the Constitution says: A general election of members of Parliament shall be held in the case of a dissolution by reason of the expiration of its term, within the period of ninety days preceding such dissolution; and in the case of a dissolution otherwise than by reason of such expiration, within ninety days after such dissolution: Provided that the persons elected at a general election under sub-clause (a) shall not assume office as members of Parliament except after the expiration of the term referred to therein. Article 148 (3) stipulates: Where under this Constitution a person is required to make an oath before he enters upon an office, he shall be deemed to have entered upon the office immediately after he makes the oath. The legal notice said that the 10th Parliament, which first sat on January 29, 2014, still existed and would continue to do so till January 28, 2019 as per Article 72(3) of the Constitution. Until that period expires, the oath and assumption of office by any person would be absurd, it stated.