Appellate Division stays HC order on government 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.

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.

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 organisation.

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’.