The
case of Anwar Hussain .Vs. Bangladesh popularly known as 8th Amendment
case is a historic judgment in the constitutional history of independence
Bangladesh. This is the first judgment whereby the Supreme Court of Bangladesh
as striking down an amendment to the constitution made by the parliament. By two Writ petition the amended Art 100 &
the notification of the Chief Justice were challenged as ultra vires. A
division bench of the HCD dismissed the
petition summarily. Leave was granted by the Appellate Division by a
majority of 3 to1 striking down the 8th amendment. The
principle argument of the judgment is that, the constitution stands on certain
fundamental principles which are its structural pillars which the parliament
cannot amend by its amending power for; if these pillars are dismissed or
damaged then the whole constitutional structure
will be down.
Basic structures are:
1. Sovereignty belongs to the people.
2. Supremacy of the Constitution.
3. Democracy.
4. Republican government.
5. Independence of Judiciary.
6. Unitary state.
7. Separation of powers.
8. Fundamental rights.
These
structural pillars of the constitution stand beyond any change by amendatory process. If by exercising the amending
power these principles are curtailed more than one permanent seat of the
Supreme Court thus destroying the unitary
character of the Judiciary. The amended Art 100 is ultra vires
because it has destroyed the essential limb of the judiciary by setting up
rival courts to the HCD in the name of permanent Benches conferring full
jurisdiction, power and function of the HCD. This amended Art 100 is
inconsistent with Art 44, 94. 101 & 102
also reduced Art 108, 109, 110 &111 of the
constitution. It directly violated Art 114 this amended is illegal because
there is no provision of transfer which is essential requisite for
dispensation of justice. If any provision can be called the ‘pole star’ of the
constitution, the nit’s Preamble. The impugned amendment is to be examined on
the touch stone of the preamble with or without restoring to the doctrine
of basic structure. The preamble is not only a part of the constitution;
it now stands an entrenched provision that cannot be amended by the parliament.
Though
this amendment it simply destroy the objectives of rule of law which is
enunciated is our preamble. The above quotations from the judgment make it
clear that the centre point, on which the majority relied to declare the
amendment illegal, which was the basic structure of the Constitution. The
Doctrine of Basic Structure is not well settled principle of the constitutional
law; rather it is recent trend in and a growing principle
of constitutional jurisprudence. The concept of basic structure of the Constitution
can be found in the Sub-Continent, as Dr. Kamal Hossain submitted in the 8th amendment case, in a decision of the Dhaka
High Court.
This
decision was upheld by the Pakistan Supreme Court in Fazlul Quder Chowdhury .Vs. Abdul Hague.
But
in its Development stage in Indian jurisdiction the first formal judicial
formulation of this doctrine came out in Golak Nath. Vs. State of Punjab case,
1967. Where it was decided that parliament has no power to amend fundamental
right so as to take away any of them. The Indian Parliament passed 24
Amendment, 1971.Which laid down that, the parliament might in the exercise of
its constituent power amend any provision of the Constitution be it of
fundamental right or of any other one. The validity of the amendment
which curtailed the power of judicial reviews
was challenged in Kesavananda .Vs. State of Kerala case,1973.
The
court by majority overruling the Golak Nath’s case, held that parliament had
the power to amend any or all the provision of the constitution. Following Kesavananda
principle, the court in the case of Indian Nehru Gandhi .Vs. Raj Narayan, 1979 held
that the 39 amendment affected and destroyed certain structure of the
constitution. The scope of the application of the doctrine of basic
structure again came up for discussion in the case of Minerva Mills Ltd
.Vs. Union of India, 1980.
Thus
proposition that parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to destroy its
basic features was again repeat and applied by the Supreme Court in Woman Rao .Vs. Union of India, 1980. The
Doctrine of Basic Structure successfully passed the acid test in 5cases in
India. And Bangladesh court in the 8th Amendment case followed the
Indian decision as regard the Doctrine of Basic Structure.
No comments:
Post a Comment