HC declares mobile courts illegal

The High Court (HC) has declared illegal and unconstitutional the operation of mobile courts by executive magistrates. However, the HC has condoned all past decisions and sentences delivered by such courts, except those which have already been challenged. An HC bench, comprising Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury and Justice Ashish Ranjan Das, came up with the verdict on Thursday, after final hearing on three writ petitions in this regard.
In its verdict, the HC bench observed that mobile courts should not be conducted under the Mobile Court Act-2009, as at least 11 sections of this Act are in conflict with the Constitution. These 11 sections of the act also go against the basic structure with regard to independence of the judiciary and decentralisation of powers, the verdict said.
On September 14, 2011, a mobile court sentenced Kamruzzaman Khan, chairman of Aesthetic Properties Development Ltd, for violating some sections of the Building Construction Act.
On October 11 that year, Kamruzzaman secured bail in the case and filed a writ petition before the HC, challenging several sections and sub-sections of the Mobile Court Act-2009.
On October 19, the HC issued a rule asking the authorities  concerned to explain why Sections 5, 6 (1), 6 (2), 6 (4), 7, 8 (1), 9, 10, 11, 13 and 15 should not be declared illegal and contradictory to the Constitution.
In December that year, Mujibur Rahman, a house owner in the capital, filed another writ petition, as a mobile court had fined him Tk. 10 lakh, in default, to serve 30 days in jail for violating the Building Construction Act.
Following the writ petition, the HC issued another rule in this regard and stayed the mobile court verdict.
On May 2, 2012, some 17 bakery owners of Dinajpur filed the third writ petition, challenging some sections of the Mobile Court Act-2009 and seeking an HC order to enact a policy to keep food experts and necessary food testing equipment with the mobile court.
In its verdict, the HC bench on Thursday directed the government to refund Tk. 10 lakh to M Mujibur Rahman. It asked the government to refund the money within 90 days.
Deputy attorney general Motahar Hossain Sazu said the government had replied to the HC rule, saying there is a necessity of running mobile courts by executive magistrates to punish offenders on the spot and prevent them from committing offences. After final hearing on the rules, the HC bench on Thursday came up with the verdict.
After the verdict, the petitioner’s lawyer, barrister Hasan MS Azim, told reporters that the court declared Section 5, which empowers an executive magistrate to conduct mobile courts, and Sections 6 (1), 6 (2), 6 (4), 7, 8 (1), 9, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Mobile Court Act-2009 illegal and contradictory to the Constitution, independence and supremacy of the judiciary, and the verdict in the Masdar Hossain case.
The mobile court ordinance was promulgated in 2007 during the regime of the Army-backed caretaker government.

 

 

HC declares mobile courts illegal

The High Court (HC) has declared illegal and unconstitutional the operation of mobile courts by executive magistrates. However, the HC has condoned all past decisions and sentences delivered by such courts, except those which have already been challenged. An HC bench, comprising Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury and Justice Ashish Ranjan Das, came up with the verdict on Thursday, after final hearing on three writ petitions in this regard. In its verdict, the HC bench observed that mobile courts should not be conducted under the Mobile Court Act-2009, as at least 11 sections of this Act are in conflict with the Constitution. These 11 sections of the act also go against the basic structure with regard to independence of the judiciary and decentralisation of powers, the verdict said. On September 14, 2011, a mobile court sentenced Kamruzzaman Khan, chairman of Aesthetic Properties Development Ltd, for violating some sections of the Building Construction Act. On October 11 that year, Kamruzzaman secured bail in the case and filed a writ petition before the HC, challenging several sections and sub-sections of the Mobile Court Act-2009. On October 19, the HC issued a rule asking the authorities concerned to explain why Sections 5, 6 (1), 6 (2), 6 (4), 7, 8 (1), 9, 10, 11, 13 and 15 should not be declared illegal and contradictory to the Constitution. In December that year, Mujibur Rahman, a house owner in the capital, filed another writ petition, as a mobile court had fined him Tk. 10 lakh, in default, to serve 30 days in jail for violating the Building Construction Act. Following the writ petition, the HC issued another rule in this regard and stayed the mobile court verdict. On May 2, 2012, some 17 bakery owners of Dinajpur filed the third writ petition, challenging some sections of the Mobile Court Act-2009 and seeking an HC order to enact a policy to keep food experts and necessary food testing equipment with the mobile court. In its verdict, the HC bench on Thursday directed the government to refund Tk. 10 lakh to M Mujibur Rahman. It asked the government to refund the money within 90 days. Deputy attorney general Motahar Hossain Sazu said the government had replied to the HC rule, saying there is a necessity of running mobile courts by executive magistrates to punish offenders on the spot and prevent them from committing offences. After final hearing on the rules, the HC bench on Thursday came up with the verdict. After the verdict, the petitioners lawyer, barrister Hasan MS Azim, told reporters that the court declared Section 5, which empowers an executive magistrate to conduct mobile courts, and Sections 6 (1), 6 (2), 6 (4), 7, 8 (1), 9, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Mobile Court Act-2009 illegal and contradictory to the Constitution, independence and supremacy of the judiciary, and the verdict in the Masdar Hossain case. The mobile court ordinance was promulgated in 2007 during the regime of the Army-backed caretaker government.