The injured workers of Spectrum Sweaters' Industries need our help
-Sromik Nirapotto Forum

Eliminating Gender Discrimination in Public Office
Judgment in Women Ward Commissioners' Case, 2003

Ten women were elected for the first time as ward commissioners to the Khulna City Corporation on 25 April 2002. They were elected in seats reserved for women which were in addition to 31 ward commissioners who had been elected to general seats. Since the women were elected through direct votes, they expected to be able to take on the same responsibilities as the male commissioners, even though their electoral constituency was made up of three regular constituencies. Their election had followed a 1997 legislation to encourage women's political participation, which was in keeping with the government's commitment to gender equality.
It came as surprise to them that on 23 September, 2002 a special circular issued by the LGRD office on 'The responsibilities of the commissioners, elected from the general and reserved seats, to ensure their effective participation and greater involvement as public representatives in City Corporation's development activities within their respective jurisdictions' discriminated in the allocation of functions and responsibilities. Thus, besides regular duties, the circular specified special duties as below:
1. Commissioner of the general seat will organize a law and order committee in the ward, with representatives from different professions and with eminent persons of the area. He (the commissioner from the general seat) will be the chairman of the committee and the commissioner of the reserved seat will be its advisor. Within the ward area the committee will maintain law and order, take steps against crime, disorder and smuggling; and keep the City Corporation informed. The committee will inform the city corporation about criminal and dangerous trades.
2. Commissioner of the general ward will be authorized to issue certificates of birth, death, succession, nationality and character.
3. Commissioner of the general ward will help the authority in conducting all kinds of reports including census.

To protest the discriminatory nature of this circular the 10 women commissioners elected to the Khulna City Corporation called a press conference on 30 November, 2003, where they urged the Prime Minister, the concerned Ministry and the Mayor of the Khulna City Corporation to withdraw such a discriminatory circular. When the government failed to take any corrective measures the 10 women commissioners filed a Writ Petition in the High Court Division,* challenging the discriminatory rules announced in the circular issued by the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives in April 2003. In the Petition, the applicants argued that the circular issued by the Ministry of LGRD has created discrimination between the ward commissioners elected to reserved seats and commissioners elected to general wards by limiting their responsibilities in certain specified areas. The Petitioners further stated that such discrimination was violative of Articles 27 and 28 of the Constitution. After the preliminary hearing, the Court issued a stay order on the controversial circular and also issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned circular limiting the duties of the women ward commissioners elected from the reserved seats should not be declared unlawful and of no legal effect. Along with this, in an interim order, the Court directed the Government to authorize the ward commissioners, elected from general or reserved seats alike, to carry out the responsibilities specified in the disputed circular till the final judgment.
After a hearing, lasting several days, a Division Bench of the High Court Division (formed by Justice ABM Khairul Haque and Justice Md. Miftah Uddin Chowdhury) declared the three sub-clauses 2 (1), 2 (5) and 2 (11) of the circular unlawful and without any legal authority. Describing the disputed circular unconstitutional the judgment reiterated that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law and have equal protection before the law and the circular contradicted the Fundamental Principles of State Policy which ask to ensure the participation of women in all spheres of state affairs. Persons elected from both general and reserved seats must have the same and equal power, responsibility, dignity and jurisdiction of work. The Court further observed that the central government cannot interfere in a way that hampers with the self regulatory nature of the local government. At the same time the court directed the respondents to ensure that all commissioners, representing general and reserved seats, must have equal rights and responsibilities. The judgment also declared that according to the Constitution and the law no discrimination regarding implementation of power and responsibility can be practiced between the commissioners elected from the general seats and from the seats reserved for women. The judgment was based on the equality of rights in the public sphere ensured by Article 28 of the Constitution. The Court continued, that, "Even before our Constitution was adopted by the Parliament in 1972, men and women had equal status in Greek civilization. In Magna Carta, or even during the making of the American Constitution, importance was given to equality between men and women. The Constitution is the highest law in any country. No agency or government can introduce laws or rules that are contradictory to its provisions." In its judgment the High Court declared that once someone is elected, no matter from which seat or ward, s/he is entitled to the same power and responsibilities. Therefore no discrimination regarding work can be practiced between general and reserved seats.

* The case was conducted by Advocates Abdul Matin Khosru, Pankaj Kundu and others. Since the Writ Petition had serious implications for promoting women's rights, elimination of gender discrimination and establishing human rights, Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) and Bangladesh Mahila Parishad became intervenors. Dr. Kamal Hossain was invited by the Court to act as Amicus Curaie .