Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK)

Litigations. »

Home »Litigations.

Government asked to eliminate bonded child labour »

September 5, 2010

HC Judgment on the PIL filed by ASK and Aparajeo Bangladesh

The High Court asked the Government to eliminate bonded child labour carried out in the coastal areas victimising fishermen. The HC also asked the Labour and Employment Ministry to stop within a year the production of Bidi outside the factories engaging child labour at houses through sub-contracts.

The court directives came following a PIL writ petition jointly filed by Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) and Aparajeo Bangladesh, following newspaper reports published six years ago disclosing the painful and hazardous life of the children working in Bidi factories in Haragachha of Rangpur. A Vacation Bench comprising Justice Iman Ali and Justice Obaidul Hasan delivered the judgment.

The HC also ordered the Government to amend the Labour Law 2006 as the provision for child labour compensation and punishment for breaching the rules by the children-dominated factory owners is inadequate. In addition, the HC asked the Government to pay cash incentives equivalent to wages foregone to the ultra poor child labour, who would attend school leaving his factory.

Advocate Nayeem Ahmed, Abu Obaidur Rahman and Abantee Nurul appeared for the petitioners.

HC orders to stop advertisement of unauthorised Housing Projects »

July 27, 2010

The High Court has directed the Government to take effective steps to stop earth filling and sale of plots by unauthorised private housing projects, and advertisements on those. The court also directed the Government to show cause as to why its failure to stop the illegal activities of private housing companies shall not be declared to be against public interest.

A High Court bench comprising Justice Wahab Miah and Justice Kazi Rezaul Hoque issued a rule with the directives following a writ petition filed by five environmental and urban planner groups on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 namely Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association, Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), Bangladesh Poribesh Andolon, Institute of Architects Bangladesh and Poribesh Bachao Andolon, the court passed the order.

The petitioners mentioned failure of the Ministry of Housing and Public Works, and Rajuk to prevent advertisements, earth filling and sale of plots in the name of unapproved private housing projects.These include proposed projects or those being implemented in the area covered by the Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan comprising the Structure Plan, Urban Area Plan and Detailed Area Plan (DAP). The petition listed 56 unauthorised projects and 418 mouzas where earth filling has to be stopped. Despite legal prohibitions, private housing companies are regularly putting up advertisements in various media to lure people to buy their plots.

Respondents to the writ petition include Rajuk, secretaries to the ministries of land, environment and forest, and information, director general of the Department of Environment, presidents of Real Estate and Housing Association of Bangladesh and Bangladesh Land Developers Association.

Barrister Fida M Kamal, Iqbal Kabir and Razik-Al-Jalil appeared for the petitioners. The Deputy Attorney General represented the Government.

ASK and BLAST challenge inaction over corporal punishment of children in schools and madrasas »

July 18, 2010

High Court show cause on govt, direction on Education Ministry

Two human rights groups, ASK and BLAST, today challenged the systematic failure of the Government to take action regarding repeated and severe incidents of corporal punishment – including caning, beating and chaining of children by teachers in schools and madrasas as a gross violation of human rights.¹ The case was brought following the reported suicide on Wednesday last week of a 10 year old boy, a student of a government school in Mymensingh after he had been beaten by a school teacher earlier in the day, and in the wake of dozens of such cases being reported in the press over the past year.²

The High Court directed the Government to show cause why a) it should not declare the involvement of government employees in such violence, and the failure to take any effective measures for prevention, or prosecution and punishment of those responsible, to be a violation of the rights to freedom from cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment or punishment guaranteed under the Constitution and b) why it should not direct the Government to conduct trainings for all teachers, regular inspection and monitoring of schools, and disseminate information through the national media about corporal punishment as a wrong and a human rights violation.

The Court also issued interim orders a) on concerned Ministries and the Boards of Education to report within two months on measures taken to investigate, prosecute and punish such incidents of corporal punishment and b) on the Ministry of Education to immediately instruct all primary and secondary educational institution by circular to refrain from carrying out any incident of corporal punishment on any child in any such institution.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Md Imman Ali and Justice Obaidul Hasan issued the Rule. The writ petition was filed by Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (www.blast.org.bd) and Ain o Salish Kendra (www.askbd.org). Sara Hossain appeared for the petitioners, with Abantee Nurul, Bulbul Rabeya Banu and Majhabeen Rabbani, Advocates. The matter is to be heard again on 4 August 2010.

For further information, please contact:
Abantee Nurul, Advocate, ASK 01713 266624 ask@citechco.net
Farida Yeasmin/Mahbuba Akhter, BLAST 01711 076240/ 01191 365001, farida@blast.org.bd

¹The petitioners argued that the failure of the concerned Ministries and Boards of Education to take action amounted to a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and under international human rights treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as CEDAW and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

² Reported incidents between March to July 2010 included the chaining of a 7 year old madrasa student for ‘indiscipline’, and severa beatings and canings resulting in hospitalization of several students, including caning of 25 students after their failure to bring coloured pencils to school, and hospitalization of 8 of them; beating of a girl student of a madrasa in Bandarban for three days; beating of a 13 year old boy student in a madrasa; and the beating of a girl student with disabilities for her failure to contribute to a school fund.

Writ petitions of ASK, BLAST, BRAC, BMP and Nijera Kori »

July 8, 2010

HC rules against all extra-judicial punishments

The High Court in a verdict on 8 July 2010 declared all kinds of extrajudicial punishment including those made in the name of fatwa in local arbitration illegal and without lawful authority. The court also directed the authorities concerned to take punitive action against the people involved in enforcing fatwa against women. Anyone involved or taking part in or assisting in any such conviction or execution would come under purview of the offences under the penal code and be subject to punishment, the court ordered.

The court observed infliction of brutal punishment including caning, whipping and beating in local salish [arbitration] by persons devoid of judicial authority constitutes violation of the constitutional rights and people’s rights to life and equal protection have to be treated in accordance with the law. The court said- as per the rules of the Constitution, the citizens will not be subject to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment.

The High Court bench of Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Justice Gobinda Chandra Tagore came up with the verdict in response to three separate writs. The petitions were filed by rights organisations — Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), Bangladesh Mahila Parishad, BRAC Human Rights and Legal Services, and Nijera Kori, and four Supreme Court lawyers — Advocate Salahuddin Dolon, Barrister Mahbub Shafique, Advocate AKM Hafizul Alam and Barrister Imaran-ul Hye.

Barrister Sara Hossain, Advocate Salahuddin Dolon, Barrister Mahbub Shafique appeared for the petitioners and Deputy Attorney General Ekram Hossain Manju for the state.

Background: The writ petition was filed by the five organizations last year and the lawyers filed two separate writs this year, seeking necessary directives from the Court to stop extrajudicial punishment in the name of fatwa. The petitions were filed following several newspaper reports and investigations by the petitioners into violence inflicted on women in the name of fatwa by local religious leaders and powerful corners. It was alleged in the petitions that a number of deaths, suicides and incidents of grievous hurt of women were reported arising from punishment given in salish, but the law- enforcement agencies took no action to prevent those unlawful actions. The petitions referred to international obligations under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979.

Earlier on August 25 last year, the High Court directed the secretary to Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development, officials of the law-enforcement agencies and the chairmen of union parishads and municipalities to take immediate measures against extrajudicial penalties in salish. It also issued a rule asking them to show cause as to why their failure to prevent such illegal acts in compliance with their statutory obligations should not be declared illegal.

ASK’s contempt of court petition »

June 10, 2010

VC and registrar of JU appeared before the court

High Court directed the VC and the Registrar of Jahangirnagar University to ensure the security of the complainant and not to harass her in discharging her duty in the University.

The High Court bench comprising of Justice Sayed Mahmud Hossain and Justice Gobinda Chondra Tagore gave this direction as the Vice Chancellor (VC) and Registrer of the University appeared before the court today in a contempt of court petition filed by Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK). Barrister Sara Hossain conducted the case on behalf of ASK.

Earlier on 3 June 2010 the Court directed VC Prof. Sharif Enamul Kabir and the Acting Registrar Mr Abu Bakar Siddique to appear in Court on 10 June and to show cause why proceedings for contempt should not be drawn up against them.

Background: Jahangirnagar University is currently conducting an internal inquiry into an allegation of sexual harassment against a university teacher. The inquiry is being conducted by a five person Complaints Committee headed by a senior woman teacher of the University.

ASK then sent legal notices to the University, the VC, the Chairperson of the Complaints Committee, and the Registrar in Charge. In their responses the Registrar and the Chairperson of the Complaints Committee commented that the complainant’s name had been earlier disclosed in the media and also by certain teachers of the University. However, they did not give any specific response regarding the specific duty on them not to disclose under Clause 8 or Clause 10 iii of the Guidelines.

High court orders VC and registrar of JU to show cause »

June 3, 2010

HIGH COURT ORDERS VICE CHANCELLOR AND REGISTRAR IN CHARGE OF JAHANGIRNAGAR UNIVERSITY TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT FOR DISCLOSING IDENTITY OF COMPLAINANT

The High Court today directed Prof. Sharif Enamul Kabir and Mr Abu Bakar Siddique to appear in Court on 10 June, and to show cause why proceedings for contempt should not be drawn up against them. The orders were issued in a petition filed by Ain o Salish Kendra, alleging that the University Officials had violated provisions of the Guidelines on Sexual Harassment Guidelines contained in the High Court’s earlier judgment dated 14 May 2008. Clause 8a and 10iii specifically require the University Authority not to disclose the identity of the complainant till the allegation is proven, and the Complaints Committee to keep the identity of the complainant confidential¹.

Background: Jahangirnagar University is currently conducting an internal inquiry into an allegation of sexual harassment against a university teacher. The inquiry is being conducted by a five person Complaints Committee headed by a senior woman teacher of the University.

During the course of the inquiry, an advertisement was published on behalf of the University, under the signature of the Registrar in Charge, in several national newspapers on 27 April 2010 referring to the inquiry and disclosing the name of the complainant. In a news report broadcast on ATN on 1 May, the Vice Chancellor referred to the complainant and said she had not filed the petition herself but had been made to do so through others.
ASK then sent legal notices to the University, the VC, the Chairperson of the Complaints Committee, and the Registrar in Charge. In their responses the Registrar and the Chairperson of the Complaints Committee commented that the complainant’s name had been earlier disclosed in the media and also by certain teachers of the University. However, they did not given any specific response regarding the specific duty on them not to disclose under Clause 8 or Clause 10iii of the Guidelines.

For further information, please contact
Abantee Nurul, 01731 266624 ask@citechco.net
Sara Hossain, 01713 031828, sarahossain@gmail.com

¹See High Court Guidelines contained in judgment dated 14.5.2009 in Writ Petition No. 5916 of 2008):

Clause 8(a): It must be ensured that the identity of the complainant and also that of the accused will not be disclosed until the allegation is proved.

Clause 10(iii) The complainant committee will keep the identities of the complainant/s confidential.

BMDC asked to explain inaction over interns’ strike »

June 1, 2010

High court issued rule upon ASK’s writ petition

The High Court on Tuesday asked the authorities of the Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council (BMDC) to report back to the court on what steps have been taken against intern doctors who often refrain from duty because they are on strike.

The High Court bench of Justice Mohammad Imman Ali and Justice Obaidul Hassan passed the order after hearing a writ petition filed by Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), challenging the inaction of the BMDC in connection with the strikes of the interns at various hospitals.

It was highlighted in the petition that many patients have died as the interns have sometimes refused to provide all kinds of services, including emergency treatment, in the name of strike and prevented other doctors from discharging their duties. Besides, the interns have often misbehaved with the patients’ attendants. Although Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council can take legal action against the interns’ misconduct as per the Act 1980, they have not done so as yet. At the same time the Government also has not been able to show any success in maintaining the quality of treatment and service in the hospitals spread over the country.

Barrister Sara Hossain conducted the case on behalf of ASK where ASK lawyers Abu Obaidur Rahman, Abantee Nurul and Mahjabin Rabbani assisted her.

ASK and three others issued legal notice to open up opportunity for the persons with disabilities to take part in the BCS examination »

April 1, 2010

On 1st April 2010 ASK, BLAST, ADD and a visually impaired man served a legal notice on the government, seeking reply within seven days as to why the man would not be issued an admit card to sit for the BCS examinations.

It has been mentioned in the notice that Shapan Chowkider who is a visually impaired person, obtained LLB and LLM degrees from Dhaka University respectively in 2008 and 2009. He was then enrolled in Bangladesh Bar Council as an Advocate after passing the written and viva examinations and started practicing as a lawyer. He applied for the 28th BCS Examination but was not issued the admit card. He then wrote repeatedly to the Prime Minister to bring the issue to her notice, but failed to get any response from her office.

Recently the Public Service Commission issued a circular for the 30th BCS examinations where they declared that Bangladesh Civil Service (Age, Qualification and Examination for direct recruitment) Rules, 1982 will be followed. This rule has set some criteria for physical fitness which will be an obstruction in getting jobs for physically impaired persons.

The legal notice highlighted that this is inconsistent with the Article 40,27,15,20 of the Constitution of Bangladesh that guaranteed the right to equal opportunity of work. Moreover, this lacks the conformity with the Section 6(2) of the Disability Welfare Act and The UN Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disability (CRPD).

The notice requested and demanded the government authority to take all necessary measures as guaranteed by the Constitution and other laws of the country to protect the persons with disabilities in public employment including (1) taking necessary steps to create oppoptunities for persons with disabilities to be employed in specific arena; (2) crearting equal employment opportunity; (3) adopting measures for relaxing the age limit for persons with disabilities in the services in public sector and (4) adopting measures for reserving quotas for persons with disabilities in the services in public sector .

The notice has been issued to the Secretaries of Estalishment ministry, Law and Parliamentary affairs Ministry and Social Welfare Ministry, PSC Chairman, Secretary and Examination Controller. Supreme Court Advocate Khondoker Shahriar Shakir issued the legal notice on behalf of the petitioners.

Writ on Unregistered Blood Centres »

February 16, 2010

HC directs Government to explain in 3 months

The High Court issued a rule upon the Government to explain within three months as to why it has not taken any legal step to stop operation of unregistered blood transfusion centres.

The High Court bench of Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Justice ATM Fazle Kabir directed the Government to submit a report within three months on the list of unregistered blood transfusion centres and actions taken against those centres. It also directed the Government to ensure whether the registered blood transfusion centres are being operated following the Safe Blood Transfusion Act 2002 and the Rules of 2008. The Health Secretary and the DG of Directorate General of Health Services, have to reply to the rule and comply with the order.

The High Court bench came up with the rule following a writ petition filed by a victim of unsafe blood transfusion Ainur Rashid and Human Rights and Legal Aid organizations Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) and Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST). In the petition they contended that the petition has been filed with a plea to take legal action against the unregistered blood transfusion centres as per the Safe Blood Transfusion Act 2002.

Barrister Sara Hossain assisted by ASK lawyer Advocate Abanti Nurul appeared for the petitioners.

Eviction of Shahidertek Bosti »

February 4, 2010

High Court issued stay order

The High Court issued a stay order for four months on the eviction of Shahidertek Bosti at Agargaon. The court issued the order in response to the writ petition filed by Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) and four slum dwellers.

On 14 January, the Senior Assistant Secretary of the Housing and Public Works Ministry issued a notice upon the inhabitants of Shahidertek Bosti to vacate their possession of the bosti land within 10 days. In response to that notice, ASK and the slum dwellers filed a writ petition on 1st February 2010 where Secretary and the Senior Assistant Secretary of the Housing and Public Works Ministry, Deputy Commissioner of Dhaka, Inspector General of Police, Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the O.C of Sher-e-Bangla Nagar Police Station were made respondents.

It is mentioned in the petition that, 2100 inhabitants have been living in the bosti for 25 years and have been enrolled as the voters of the locality and they have cast their votes in the last national election. UNICEF and BRAC run education and health program respectively in that bosti. The petition highlighted that, there is a clear and positive duty cast upon the Government under Article 15 of the Constitution to provide the basic necessities for the people (including food, clothing, shelter, education and health), the right to work and the right to social security, which is read together with the fundamental right – ‘Right to Life’ guaranteed by Article 32 of the Constitution. It is also said in the petition that, the issuance of the notice without any prior rehabilitation is in clear violation of the principles enunciated in the previous judgment of the High Court (19 BLD 1991 page-488)

The High Court bench comprised Justice Momtaz Uddin Ahmed and Justice Naima Haider issued the rule. The petitioners were represented by Barrister Sara Hossain with the assistance of ASK’s lawyer Abanti Nurul. Deputy Attorny General Mostofa Zaman Islam represented the Government in the case.

HC orders RAB no crossfire till next hearing in January »

December 14, 2009

The High Court on 14 December expressed grave concern over persistence of extrajudicial killings as 11 people were killed in custody since issuance of a suo moto rule upon the government on November 17 for an explanation on the matter. ASK and BLAST earlier became intervener in the suo moto rule.

The court asked the attorney general to convey its concern to the Director General of Rapid Action Battalion (RAB). The HC also asked him to take initiatives so that no such killings take place till the next hearing on the matter scheduled for January 9.The HC also asked the state’s top law officer to place the names of Rab officials of Madaripur involved in detaining the two brothers — Lutfor Rahman Khalasi and Khairul Haque Khalasi — who were killed on November 16.

During hearing on the rule, ASK and BLAST submitted separate statements to the court saying over 1,000 people have been killed in custody in "so-called" crossfire, encounter or gunfight in violation of human rights since formation of RAB in 2004.

Advocate Ruhul Quddus Babu appeared for BLAST and Barrister Saifur Rashid stood for ASK.

Background Info
Following newspaper reports on killings of Khairul and Lutfor, the HC on November 17 issued the suo moto rule upon RAB officials Lt Hasan, Maj Kazi Wahiduzzaman, the DG and the Home Secretary.

The court asked them to explain in 48 hours why appropriate action should not be taken against Maj Wahiduzzaman and Lt Hasan and their companions for liability of the killings.

It also directed the RAB DG to give an explanation in this regard, as heinous activities of extrajudicial killings are carried out in his battalion.

Replying to the rule, the Home Secretary and two other RAB officials told the court no-one by the name Maj Kazi Wahiduzzaman was found in the Madaripur unit of RAB.

Ain O Shalish Kendra’s Writ »

November 9, 2009

High Court directs Government to implement Labor Law 2006 in the ship breaking industry at Sitakundu.

The High Court has ordered the government to take proper steps to implement the Labor Law 2006 in the ship-breaking industry at Sitakundu in Chittagong. The High Court bench of Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Justice Kamrul Islam Siddiqui gave ruling on 9 November 2009 upon hearing the writ petition filed by Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK).

The High Court issued a Rule upon the secretary of industry, the secretary of labor and employment, the inspector general of factories, the divisional commissioner of Chittagong and the president of Ship-breakers’ Association to show cause as to why the labor safety should not be ensured in compliance with the Labor Law 2006 and why they should not be directed to discharge their legal duties to ensure compliance with the Labor Law 2006 in the ship-breaking sector by taking proper steps.

In the writ petition, ASK stated that around 30 thousand people directly involved in the ship-breaking sector are working in highly risky conditions due to the concerned authority’s failure to enforce labor safety provisions of Labor Law 2006. Frequently workers are dying from poisonous gas or from falling crushed iron. On an average, everyday one labor gets injured and one dies in a week. From this sector, the government earns Tk 900 Crore in revenue every year and this industry meets 90% of our country’s demand of iron. But this industry is in danger due to the lack of implementation of the Labor Law 2006.

Barrister Saifur Rashid moved the writ petition on behalf of ASK.

EXTRA- JUDICIAL PENALTIES IN SHALISH: »

August 25, 2009

25 August 2009

HIGH COURT DIRECTS LGRD, LAW ENFORCING AGENCIES AND UNION PARISHADS AND PAURASHAVAS TO TAKE IMMEDIATE MEASURES

The High Court today “in view of information having brought to its notice that a section of people across the country have been imposing punishments by beating and lashing in the name of mediation/conciliation and the imposition of such punishments not being permitted by the Constitution nor by any law” issued a Rule Nisi today on the Government and the Inspector General of Police as follows:

“ To show cause why their failure to act in a timely manner and to comply with their legal and constitutional duties to take effective measures to prevent the imposition and execution of extra-legal penalties including by way of framing and adopting and disseminating appropriate guidelines, directions or orders to all concerned authorities to report any information regarding the occurrence or likely occurrence of such incidents should not be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and /or violative of fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 27, 31, 32, 35(5) and 43 of the Constitution, and as to why the Respondents should not be directed to frame and adopt such guidelines, directions or orders as appropriate and to disseminate them through Bangladesh Television and Bangladesh Betar”

The Court also issued an interim order upon the Government and the law enforcing agencies and all Union Parishads and Paurashavas to take immediate measures to investigate promptly any report received of the issuance and imposition of an extra-judicial penalty such as beating or lashing by any person or body, including a Member of Chairman of any Union Parishad or Paurashava, and to take appropriate measures against any person found responsible, also to provide security and protection to any victim.

The High Court also directed the Ministry of Local Government to inform all Union Parishads and Paurashavas of this order.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Mahmud Hossain and Justice Quamrul Islam Siddique issued the Rule and order.The writ petition was filed jointly by the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), Bangladesh Mahila Parishad, Ain o Salish Kendra(ASK), BRAC and Nijera Kori.
BACKGROUND: The Rule was issued in a public interest writ petition filed by five human rights, women’s rights and development organisations, in the context of a series of reports of women and men being subjected to extra-judicial punishments including whipping and caning during the course of rural ‘shalish’, often in the presence of or with the active participation of Members or Chairmen of Union Parishads.
The petition described incidents in June where a woman and man were lashed 101 times on orders of village elders in Nobigonj, Habiganj in a ‘shalish’ held in the presence of a Chairman; a woman in Srimongol being lashed 101 times for speaking to a man from a different community; a woman in Sirajgonj being caned 100 times and fined for daring to file a complaint of rape with the court; a woman being whipped in public in August after refusing a relative’s sexual advances.

The petitioners challenged the failure of the Government to prevent the imposition of such extra-judicial penalties, or to provide information to the public that such penalties are wholly without lawful authority and unconstitutional and in violation of fundamental rights to life, liberty and equality and non-discrimination, as well as the right to be treated in accordance with law and to be free from cruel and degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment. They sought urgent preventive measures as well as information to be issued to the public and to concerned bodies regarding their duties to prevent such incidents.

For further information, please contact:
Ayesha Khanam (President, Mohila Porishod)           01717 363647
Sultana Kamal (ASK)                                                  01714025180
Dr. Faustina Pereira (BRAC)                                      01715 007470
Khushi Kabir (Coordinator, Nijera Kori)                      01711565152

HC Rule on Govt »

June 29, 2009

Explain why killings in ‘crossfire’ not illegal

The High Court (HC) issued a rule upon the government on 29 June 2009 to explain within four weeks why extra-judicial killings in ‘crossfire’ or ‘encounters’ with law enforcement agencies should not be declared illegal. The court also asked the government to explain why departmental and punitive actions should not be taken against those responsible for such killings while in custody, or elsewhere.

An HC bench of Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Justice Quamrul Islam Siddiqui issued the rule upon a writ petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) jointly by three rights organisations — Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and Karmojibi Nari (KN).

During the hearing, additional attorney general (AAG) MK Rahman told the court that no instances of extra-judicial killing has taken place during the regime of the present government as this government believes in the protection of the rights of the country’s citizens. He also said that the government would take steps against incidents of extra-judicial killings that took place in the country before the current government’s tenure began.

The writ petition was filed with the HC, stating that at least 969 people have been killed while in custody, or in crossfires or in encounters with law enforcement agencies across the country since 2004, in violation of the constitution and provisions of law.

Barrister Saifur Rashid stood for the petitioners. Advocate Abu Obaidur Rahman, Shariar Shakir and Abanti Nurul assisted him.

Jahangirnagar University Students Win Landmark Victory on Sexual Harrassment »

May 17, 2009

The High Court gave a landmark judgment today in the first application of its Sexual Harassment Guidelines pronounced on 14 May.

One year ago, in May 2008, four women students at Jahangirnagar University made complaints of serial sexual harassment against their teacher and the Chairperson of the Drama Department, Sanowar Hossain Sunny. The University appointed three separate inquiry committees, which examined witnesses and issued reports with clear findings against the teacher. During this period, the students continued to face threats and harassment. In September 2008, the University announced that Sunny was ‘exonerated of all charges of sexual harassment as they had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt’. Later the University also proceeded to pass orders of temporary expulsion against four of the women complainants, and two male students who had given evidence in their favour.

Prof Sirajul Islam Chowdhury and others filed a public interest petition challenging the University’s decision and actions. Later the victim-complainants and the two other students also became parties to the petition (Prof Sirajul Islam and others v Jahangirnagar University and others Writ Petition 9414 of 2008).

Today the High Court held that the decisions taken by the University to exonerate Sunny on the one hand, and to expel the students on the other, were both without lawful authority. It also directed the University to hold a fresh inquiry into the incident, with independent persons, on the basis of the new Guidelines on Sexual Harassment pronounced in BNWLA v Bangladesh . Citing judgments of the Supreme Courts of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, the Court held that corroboration was not always required to prove allegations of sexual violence, and further that the standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ could not be applicable in cases of this nature, relating to disciplinary inquiries regarding allegations of sexual harassment. The Court also noted that Jahangirnagar University authorities had failed ‘for reasons best known to themselves’ to adopt their own guidelines on sexual harassment, and therefore in the absence of any applicable law, the High Court’s new guidelines should be applied to any fresh inquiry.

The writ petition was filed by eminent citizens Prof. Sirajul Islam Chowdhury and Kamal Lohani, and three human rights organisations, Ain o Salish Kendra, Nijera Kori and Kormojibi Nari.[1] Four women students of Jahagirnagar University who had made complaints of sexual harassment, and two others who gave evidence, were also joined as petitioners during the course of the hearing.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Justice Quamrul Islam Siddiqi passed the judgment today.

The Jahagirnagar University students were represented by Mr Ruhul Quddus Babu. The public interest petitioners were represented by Ms Sara Hossain and Ms Shirin Sharmin Chowdhury, Mr. Ramzan Ali Sikder, Ms. Ainun Nahar Siddiqa and Ms. Abanti Nurul.

Background

In April 2008, four women students submitted written complaints of sexual harassment against Asst Prof Sanowar Hossain Sunny of the Drama and Dramatic Theory Department. The University set up a preliminary inquiry committee, and then a further verification committee both of which made prima facie findings against the teacher. On consideration of their reports, the Syndicate established a Full Inquiry Committee under Section 44 of the Jahangirnagar University Act. This report was submitted to the Syndicate which passed a decision on 13.9.2008 to exonerate the said teacher of all charges of sexual harassment on the ground that in the absence of eyewitnesses these had not been ‘proved beyond reasonable doubt’. This decision was passed despite clear findings by each Inquiry Committee against the teacher, including findings by the Final Inquiry Committee of misconduct against the teacher, and that his behaviour was ‘wholly improper and unbefitting of a teacher’ and recommending action against him. The University, despite having powers to do so, had never suspended the teacher pending inquiry.

During this entire period, the victim complainants and others witnesses had been subjected to repeated threats and warned that unless they stopped pursuing their claims against the teacher, they would face dire consequences. These threats were reported to the University Authorities but no action was taken. Appeals filed by the students to the Chancellor of the University, also the President of the country, went unheeded.

In October, the University then reinstated the teacher. Following his return to the campus, and an altercation with students, the accused teacher made a complaint against six students (two of whom were among the women who had made complaints against him and two of whom were male students who had given evidence against him). The Syndicate moved the same day to pass orders of temporary expulsion on these six students. A section of the Jahagirnagar University Teachers Association then held processions and meetings demanding the immediate expulsion of the students, and refused to hold classes unless action was taken. Some of these teachers were at the same time involved in the disciplinary proceedings against the students.

On 27 October, the High Court issued a Rule Nisi on the University and also stayed the orders of temporary expulsion passed on the students. It asked Jahangirnagar University Authorities to show cause among others as to why its to exonerate Sanower Hossain Sunny should not be declared to be without lawful authority and why a fresh inquiry should not be held into the matter. It also stayed operation of the orders of the Syndicate suspending six students of the University including four of the women who had originally made complaints against this teacher and two other who had given evidence against him.

The University in its response to the Court stated that it had acted with ‘due process’ and justified the action taken against the student victims of sexual harassment. As a result of the High Court’s orders, it submitted copies of the reports of the three Inquiry Committees to the Court.

It should be noted that the Jahagirnagar University Authorities had themselves mandated the framing of Guidelines to Prevent Sexual Harassment, in the wake of earlier incidents of serial sexual harassment, from more than ten years ago, involving both teachers and students as perpetrators. However, the Syndicate had failed to adopt these Guidelines to date. In the meantime, in 2008, the University Grants Commission framed similar Guidelines, drawing on the Jahangirnagar Version. But ultimately these Guidelines were not adopted by the Education Ministry which took the decision earlier this week that each University should frame its own rules and regulations - leaving victims of sexual harassment with no effective redress. In this context, the High Court’s Guidelines in BNWLA v Bangladesh have filled a much needed gap in the law, and today’s judgment shows how they can be immediately utilised to open up new possibilities for legal protection and also to hold authorities responsible for creating a violence free educational environment.

For further information, please contact
Sara Hossain, 01713 031828, sarahossain@gmail.com
Ruhul Quddus, 01711 434891

Dr. Humayra Abedin is free to go to London »

December 14, 2008

High Court Orders Police Commissioner to ensure her safe Journey to the British High Commission

Today the High Court division bench of justices Syed Mahmud Hossain and Quamrul Islam Siddique direct the Police Commissioner to ensure safe arrival of Dr.Humayara Abedin to the British High Commission in Dhaka. The Court requests the British High Commission to arrange her safe journey back to London. The Court issues the order in a habeas corpus writ petition filed by Dr.Shipra Chowdhury, cousin of Dr.Humayara Abedin and Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) that Humayara is being confined against her will.

Earlier on 27 October 2008, the same bench ordered Humayara’s parents and uncle to produce her in person before the court and on 3 December 2008 the Court issued orders for the fourth time on her parents to produce Humayara before the court on 14 December.

In response to the High Court’s repetitive orders, today, 14 December, Humayara’s father appeared with Humayara before the court and return her passpart and air tictket as per the Court’s direction. While talking to the Court, Humayara clearly stated that her movement was severely restricted for the last five months and also complained of severe violence on her in her parents’ custody. She expressed her will to go back to London to pursue her education.

Background

The High Court had on 27.10.2008 directed the parents and uncle of Dr. Humayra to appear and to produce her in person, after ASK and Dr. Humayra’s cousin filed a habeas corpus petition that she was being confined against her will. The parents and uncle failed to comply and after the Court ordered the top police official to ensure Dr Humayra’s recovery, lawyers for the parents finally appeared before the Court. But the parents continued to fail to comply with the Court’s orders - since they have not produced Humayra before the court. The parents have claimed through their lawyers that Dr. Humayra, though an adult, should be in her parents’ custody first on the ground that she was ‘unmarried’ and later, because she was ‘mentally ill’.

Dateline

August 2008:

ASK received information that Dr. Humayra was being detained against her will by her parents.
After filing a GD, ASK staff, accompanied by police, went to the parents’ house but were obstructed by her parents from speaking to her in private, despite her express wishes to do so. The parents stated that they and Dr. Humayra would attend the ASK office on the next day. They failed to do so.

27 Oct 08

In a habeas corpus petition filed by ASK and a relative of Dr. Humayra, the High Court directed her parents to appear on 4 November and to produce her in person. They failed to do so.

10 Nov 08

The Court ordered the Inspector General of Police to ensure Dr. Humayra’s recovery by 17 November. Before this date, on 16 November, a lawyer appeared for the first time on behalf of the parents and uncle and sought two weeks’ time. The parents failed to appear or to produce Dr. Humayra.
The petitioner’s lawyer requested to meet with Dr. Humayra in the meantime but the other side refused to allow this.

23 Nov 08

Another lawyer appeared for parents, and again sought time to appeal against the High Court’s order to produce Dr. Humayra. The Court asked why the parents did not simply produce Dr. Humayra and comply with its orders and allowed time for three days.

24 Nov 08

The Chamber Judge of the Appellate Division refused to stay the High Court’s order to produce Dr. Humayra.

25 Nov 08

The parents’ lawyers again sought time before the High Court although there was no stay order. The parents failed to appear, or to produce Dr. Humayra.
The Court issued suo motu contempt notices on the parents and uncle and directed them to appear in person on 3 December.

3 Dec 08

The parents appeared but failed to produce Dr. Humyra. Their lawyer again sought for time until January.
The Court directed that the parents appear in Court and produce Dr. Humayra on 14 December positively.

5 Dec 08

In a petition filed by Anne Marie Hutchinson, human rights activist, the British High Court issued an order on her parents prohibiting her parents to force or attempt to force Humayara( a British Resident) to enter into a marriage.

14 Dec 08
- Humayara’s parents produced Humayara before the Court.
- The Court talked

with Humayara for more than half an hour
directs her parents to return Humayara’s passport, air ticket, credit card and driving license
directs the Police Commissioner to ensure safe arrival of Dr.Humayara Abedin to the British High Commission in Dhaka.
requests the British High Commission to arrange her safe journey back to London.

17 Dec 2008

Humayara returns to London

High Court Directs Parents to Produce Dr Humayra, 33 years »

December 4, 2008

The High Court today issued orders for the fourth time on the parents and uncle of Dr. Humayra Abedin, 33, a trainee GP in London, to produce her in person before the Court on 14 December 2008, in a habeas corpus petition filed by ASK and Dr. Humayra’s cousin.

The parents of Dr. Humayra, Mr and Mrs Joynal Abedin, finally appeared today after the Court had issued contempt notices on them on 26 November for their failure to comply with its orders to appear and to produce Dr. Humayra. Their lawyer again sought time to produce Humayra, although there are pending orders of the Court directing them to do so. The lawyer for ASK questioned why the Court’s orders should be persistently flouted in this manner and why the parents were refusing to allow Dr. Humayra, an adult to continue with her professional training in the UK and why the parents and their lawyers were preventing Dr. Humayra from expressing her own will by coming before the Court.

Background

Dr. Abedin had traveled to Dhaka from London in August 2008 in response to calls that her mother was desperately ill, but following her arrival was forcibly confined against her will by her parents. Although ASK staff and police, alerted to this situation, were able to meet her for a few moments in August 2008, they were obstructed by her parents from speaking to her in private. Since mid- August, Dr. Humayra has been effectively held incommunicado, and her friends and well-wishers in Bangladesh and the UK are increasingly concerned about her welfare and safety.

The High Court had on 27.10.2008 directed the parents and uncle of Dr. Humayra to appear and to produce her in person, after ASK and Dr. Humayra’s cousin filed a habeas corpus petition that she was being confined against her will. The parents and uncle failed to comply and after the Court ordered the top police official to ensure Dr Humayra’s recovery, lawyers for the parents finally appeared before the Court. But the parents continued to fail to comply with the Court’s orders - since they have not produced Humayra before the court. The parents have claimed through their lawyers that Dr. Humayra, though an adult, should be in her parents’ custody first on the ground that she was ‘unmarried’ and later, because she was ‘mentally ill’.

Dateline

August 2008:

ASK received information that Dr. Humayra was being detained against her will by her parents.

After filing a GD, ASK staff, accompanied by police, went to the parents’ house but were obstructed by her parents from speaking to her in private, despite her express wishes to do so. The parents stated that they and Dr. Humayra would attend the ASK office on the next day. They failed to do so.

27 Oct 08

In a habeas corpus petition filed by ASK and a relative of Dr. Humayra, the High Court directed her parents to appear on 4 November and to produce her in person. They failed to do so.

10 Nov 08

The Court ordered the Inspector General of Police to ensure Dr. Humayra’s recovery by 17 November. Before this date, on 16 November, a lawyer appeared for the first time on behalf of the parents and uncle and sought two weeks’ time. The parents failed to appear or to produce Dr. Humayra.

The petitioner’s lawyer requested to meet with Dr. Humayra in the meantime but the other side refused to allow this.

23 Nov 08

Another lawyer appeared for parents, and again sought time to appeal against the High Court’s order to produce Dr. Humayra.

The Court asked why the parents did not simply produce Dr. Humayra and comply with its orders and allowed time for three days.

24 Nov 08

The Chamber Judge of the Appellate Division refused to stay the High Court’s order to produce Dr. Humayra.

25 Nov 08

The parents’ lawyers again sought time before the High Court although there was no stay order. The parents failed to appear, or to produce Dr. Humayra.

The Court issued suo motu contempt notices on the parents and uncle and directed them to appear in person on 3 December.

3 Dec 08

The parents appeared but failed to produce Dr. Humyra. Their lawyer again sought for time until January.

The Court directed that the parents appear in Court and produce Dr. Humayra on 14 December positively.

The matter is being heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Justice Quamrul Islam Siddique. Ms Sara Hossain, Mr Murad Reza and Mr Ramzan Ali Sikder appeared for the petitioners. Mr Khondoker Mahbubuddin Ahmad, Senior Advocate, appeared for the respondents

For Further Information. Contact:
ASK, 933 7173, 01715 089573 ask@citechco.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
1. Mr TH Khan, Senior Advocate.
2. Mr Khondoker Mahbubuddin, Senior Advocate.

High Court Orders on Jahagirnagar University: Show Cause re Order Exonerating Teacher of Sexual Harassment »

December 2, 2008

The High Court today asked Jahangirnagar University Authorities to show cause why its decision dated 13.9.2008 to exonerate Sanower Hossain Sunny, a teacher of the Department of Drama and Dramatic Theory, of charges of sexual harassment should not be declared to be without lawful authority, why a fresh inquiry should not be held into the matter, and why a Commission of Inquiry under a former Supreme Court Justice should not be established in this connection.

The High Court also stayed operation of the order dated 25.10.2008 of the Syndicate suspending six students of the University including four of the women who had originally made complaints against this teacher and two other who had given evidence against him.

The writ petition was filed by Prof. Sirajul Islam Chowdhury, Ain o Salish Kendra represented by Sultana Kamal, Kamal Lohani, Nijera Kori, represented by Khushi Kabir, and Kormojibi Nari represented by Shirin Akhter.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Justice Quamrul Islam Siddiqi issued the Rule Nisi and the interim order. The petitioner’s lawyers were Ms. Sara Hossain, Dr. Shirin Sharmeen Choudhury, Mr. Ramzan Ali Sikder, Ms. Ainun Nahar Siddiqa and Ms. Abanti Nurul.

Background

In April 2008, four women students submitted written complaints of sexual harassment against Asst Prof Sanower Hossain Sunny of the Drama and Dramatic Theory Department. A preliminary inquiry committee was set up and then a further inquiry committee. On consideration of their reports, the Syndicate established a Full Inquiry Committee under Section 44 of the Jahangirnagar University Act. This report was submitted to the Syndicate which decided on 13.9.2008 to exonerate the said teacher of all charges ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. No reasons were given for this decision. The Syndicate, despite having clear powers to do so, had never suspended the teacher pending inquiry.

After this decision, the teacher was then reinstated. Within a few days, following an incident on campus, he himself made a complaint – against six students (two of whom had made complaints against him and two of whom had given evidence against him). The syndicate moved the same day to suspend these students.

Appellate Division refuses to stay High Court order to produce Doctor »

November 26, 2008

The Appellate Division on 24 October refused to stay High Court orders to produce in person Dr. Humayra Abedin, a 32 year old doctor, and practicing GP in the UK, who is allegedly detained by her own parents against her will.

The High Court had ordered her parents to appear in court and to produce Humayra in an order dated 27 October, in a habeas corpus petition filed by ASK. When her parents failed to appear as directed, the Court directed the IG of Police to ensure her recovery. Then on 17 November, lawyers for the parents claimed before the Court that as Dr. Humayra was unmarried she had to be in the custody of her parents, and then gave an assurance to the Court that she would be produced in Court on Sunday 23. However, on Sunday 23, a new lawyer for the parents appeared and this time claimed that Dr. Humayra was mentally ill and therefore in the custody of her parents, and sought time to move the Appellate Division in order to stay the order of production. The Court observed that there had been total non-compliance with its orders by the parents, and there had been fraud upon the Court. However it gave the opportunity for filing and moving the petitioner before the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division refused to stay the orders passed by the High Court. The matter is due to appear before the High Court on 26 November.

Background

In August 2008, ASK received information that Dr. Humayra Abedin, 32 years, currently a GP in London, was being forcibly confined by her parents, Mr and Mrs Joynal Abedin. ASK accompanied by police visited Mr Abedin’s house and tried to talk to Humayra but were not allowed to do so by her parents. They promised to bring Humayra to ASK the next day but failed to do so, and removed Humayra to an undisclosed location. ASK sought intervention by the police and then ultimately in October 2008, together with Humayra’s cousin, filed a petition for habeas corpus in the High Court. Dr. Humayra’s family have failed to appear before the High Court to date, or to produce Dr. Humayra, despite several orders having been passed and their own lawyers having assured the Court that they would produce her.

For Further Information
Contact, Adv Selina Akhter, ASK, 933 7173 ask@citechco.net

High Court Division issued rule for safe migration of workers »

August 25, 2008

A Division Bench comprising Justice Syed Mahmood Hossain and Justice Farid Ahammad issued the rule in a writ petition (no. 6409/ 2008) filed by human rights organisation Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), IMA (International Migrants’ Alliance) Research Foundation and three victim workers repatriated from Malaysia.

On 25 August 2008 the High Court Division of the Supreme Court issued a rule nisi upon the Foreign Ministry, Ministry of Expatriate Welfare, Bureau of Manpower, Employment and Training (BMET) and Bangladesh Association of International Recruiting Agencies (BAIRA) to show cause as to why the role of the concerned ministries to ensure safe migration of workers shall not be considered as a failure to discharge their duty and as to why the respondents shall not be directed to ensure safe manpower export.

Three workers; named Md Sirajul Islam, Abu Hanif Hawladar and Anamul Haque Talukdar went to Malaysia through the recruiting agencies, Ardent International Ltd. and Al-Fatiha Overseas in 2007. On their arrival in Malaysia, the local agents seized their passports from them and also from more than hundred other Bangladeshi workers. Then they confined them all in a warehouse for about five months. Later, they were handed over to another company and the overseas agents misappropriated their salary. As the affected Bangladeshi workers moved to the Malaysian court claiming their wages, the court declared their work permits fake. The workers, including the three petitioners then went to the Bangladesh High Commission in Malaysia asking for their help. But the High Commission did not provided them with any kind of assistance. Finding no other alternative, the helpless Bangladeshi workers took shelter under an over bridge near the Bangladesh High Commission at Kualalampur. They also contacted with their respective recruiting agencies in Bangladesh. But they also did not respond. Finally, the Bangladeshi workers, including the three petitioners, returned home with the aid of IMA Research Foundation, one of the petitioners in the said writ petition.

Advocate Md Nizamul Huq and Advocate Abu Obaidur Rahman conducted the case for the petitioners.