Staff Reporter :
The High Court (HC) on Sunday issued a rule upon the Election Commission and the government to explain as to why the schedule for holding Zila Parisad election on December 28 should not be declared illegal.
The HC bench of Justice Quazi Reza-Ul Hoque and Justice Mohammad Ullah passed the order after hearing a writ petition filed by Eunus Ali Akond, a Supreme Court lawyer, on November 29 challenging the legality of the provision of District Council Law that allows indirect voting to the elections.
In another term of the rule, the Court asked the government to explain in four weeks as to why the District Council Act 2000 and related three provisions of District Council Act (Amended) 2006 should not be declared contradictory to the Constitution.
The HC bench said that, they would hold hearing on a similar pending rule, which was issued in 2000 along with the yesterday’s rule.
In the petition, he said that Provisions 4(2) and 17 of ‘District Council Act 2000’ and Provision 5 of amended District Council Act were contradictory to the Constitution. These provisions allow an electoral body to cast votes in the District Council elections.
It was said in the petition that these provisions are against the Constitution as there is no system of electoral bodies voting in the elections. The voters are supposed to cast their votes directly in all elections under the Constitution.
The High Court (HC) on Sunday issued a rule upon the Election Commission and the government to explain as to why the schedule for holding Zila Parisad election on December 28 should not be declared illegal.
The HC bench of Justice Quazi Reza-Ul Hoque and Justice Mohammad Ullah passed the order after hearing a writ petition filed by Eunus Ali Akond, a Supreme Court lawyer, on November 29 challenging the legality of the provision of District Council Law that allows indirect voting to the elections.
In another term of the rule, the Court asked the government to explain in four weeks as to why the District Council Act 2000 and related three provisions of District Council Act (Amended) 2006 should not be declared contradictory to the Constitution.
The HC bench said that, they would hold hearing on a similar pending rule, which was issued in 2000 along with the yesterday’s rule.
In the petition, he said that Provisions 4(2) and 17 of ‘District Council Act 2000’ and Provision 5 of amended District Council Act were contradictory to the Constitution. These provisions allow an electoral body to cast votes in the District Council elections.
It was said in the petition that these provisions are against the Constitution as there is no system of electoral bodies voting in the elections. The voters are supposed to cast their votes directly in all elections under the Constitution.
