UNB, Dhaka :
In the wake of a writ petition filed challenging the legality of holding their respective posts by two ministers even after the Supreme Court’s observation that they flouted the oath of office, the High Court on Tuesday wanted to know about the legal consequences of the oath violation.
It asked Supreme Court lawyer Yunus Ali Akand, who filed the writ, to inform it whether there is any decision in verdicts pronounced in any subcontinent country, including India and Pakistan, regarding the issue.
An HC bench comprising Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury and Justice Ashish Ranjan Das also fixed Thursday for hearing the petition filed against Food Minister Qamrul Islam and Liberation War Affairs Minister AKM Mozammel. Earlier on Monday, Yunus Ali Akand filed the petition challenging the legality of holding their respective posts by the two ministers even after the Supreme Court observed that they had violated the oath of office.
On September 4, a legal notice was served on them to explain on what authority they are still holding their respective posts even after the Supreme Court’s observation.
In the wake of a writ petition filed challenging the legality of holding their respective posts by two ministers even after the Supreme Court’s observation that they flouted the oath of office, the High Court on Tuesday wanted to know about the legal consequences of the oath violation.
It asked Supreme Court lawyer Yunus Ali Akand, who filed the writ, to inform it whether there is any decision in verdicts pronounced in any subcontinent country, including India and Pakistan, regarding the issue.
An HC bench comprising Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury and Justice Ashish Ranjan Das also fixed Thursday for hearing the petition filed against Food Minister Qamrul Islam and Liberation War Affairs Minister AKM Mozammel. Earlier on Monday, Yunus Ali Akand filed the petition challenging the legality of holding their respective posts by the two ministers even after the Supreme Court observed that they had violated the oath of office.
On September 4, a legal notice was served on them to explain on what authority they are still holding their respective posts even after the Supreme Court’s observation.
