Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) executive magistrate Md. Sarwoer Alam has sought apology to the High Court for failing to provide a certified copy of the order after four months of judgment in the mobile court. On November 18, Sarwoer Alam appeared before the court and sought the apology. Alam informed the court that it was delayed due to scarcity of logistics and insufficient manpower. The High Court instantly directed the Home Secretary to provide the necessary manpower.
The Mobile Court Act of 2009 is a complicated piece of legislation making arbitrary use of power easy. Yes, it is admitted that mobile courts are to deal with special situations and some amount of discretionary power should be available. But mobile courts cannot be substitute for inefficiency of the government. The mobile courts cannot play the same role that played by the country’s judicial branch.
Another thing, the law has been so worded that
the respondents feel totally helpless. There are too many mobile courts for dispensing instant punishment. Either pay the fine or face immediate action for sending to jail. The fear of immediate police arrest is oppressive and the power is often abused for corruption which is now allegedly flooding the country.
It is unbelievable that the magistrate failed to supply a certified copy of its judgment for lack of logistic support. The reason may lie elsewhere. Lack of responsibility, in general, may be the main cause.
Although our Supreme Court at one stage found the mobile courts are anti-judiciary, the view did not prevail. These courts are executive in nature but they could not be as effective as it was originally expected. It is because mobile courts were too frequently used and the government failed to ensure regular supervision over the issue. There are also allegations of abusing the arbitrary power for extracting money. The reason lies in the overwhelming sense of helplessness of the people and the power of corruption.
It is within our knowledge that private negotiation is made often with the accused persons fearlessly with an ill intention and it is seldom reported. One thing is clear, money must be paid or face imprisonment. Even locking up the accused is a lucrative business.
But that was not original plan of mobile courts. The offence to be surely identified and punishment should be made sure. Mobile courts are not to be treated as money collecting business.
So, some offenders think that money is paid so they are free to go on as usual. But the view was that-the offender has been caught on the spot publicly committing the criminal act and the shame of publicity should be seen as more important and effective.
We need ministries concerned to function with competence. Under a dysfunctional government and corruption being everybody’s business, the mobile courts are seen by many as a tool of harassment for others.
The mobile courts exist in every country but they must function sincerely keeping in mind the long-term result. The fear of immediate justice should be implanted honestly and diligently. The mobile courts, however, under right situations are most effective.
