The New Nation - Internet Edition

Staff Reporter

The Supreme Court yesterday upheld the High Court ruling that made mandatory for the candidates in parliamentary elections to make public personal information.

The Full Bench of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice M Ruhul Amin delivered the judgment, throwing away an appeal by an absentee appellant, who challenged this electoral reform measure. The Full Bench of the Appellate Division turned down the appeal as fabricated and not maintainable in the eye of law, endorsing the allegation made by the public-interest litigation (PIL) petitioners that the appellant and his counsel acted fraud upon the highest judiciary by making false statements.

Resuming the day's business with this case, the apex Court expressed its disappointments, as the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) for the appellant failed to produce one Abu Safa, the appellant, before delivery of the judgment.

AoR Nawab Ali told the Court that, after conducting a "thorough, sincere and exhaustive search", the appellant Safa could not be made available.

Pointing finger at the AoR, the Court said, "You have lost valuable time of the Court and diverted the course of justice."

The Court blasted, "We have to set our own house in order and people like you have destroyed the image of this institution. That is why you will have to pay for this. Either quit voluntarily or we would strike your name off the AoR roll."

The High Court on May 24 in 2005, upon a public-interest litigation (PIL) writ petition filed by three lawyers, made mandatory for a candidate contesting parliamentary elections to make public eight pieces of personal information in filing nomination papers to the Election Commission.

These include candidate's academic qualifications, sources of income, profession, assets, liabilities, bank balances, and criminal records, if any.

The ruling was strictly abided by the Election Commission (EC) in the subsequent parliamentary by-elections and election to the 45 reserved seats for women in parliament.

The PIL petitioners had filed the writ to help the voters in choosing their representatives properly. But, after 19 months of the execution of the High Court directives, one Abu Safa, an unknown person in politics, secured a stay against the ruling from a vacation chamber judge of the Supreme Court, a day before the last date of filing nomination for the stalled January 22 general elections.

Later, Safa also got a leave to appeal against the High Court ruling.

The PIL petitioners were Advocates Abdul Momen Chowdhury, KM Zabir and M Zahirul Islam.

Renowned jurist Dr Kamal Hossain appeared for the petitioners, while Barrister Omar Sa'dat stood for appellant Abu Safa.