The Appellate Division’s full verdict on the 16th Amendment denounced the political culture of laying monopoly ownership over achievements of the nation using first person as the vehicle of expression.
‘We must keep ourselves free from the suicidal ambition and addiction to I’ness,’ says the verdict in the observations.
The full verdict released Tuesday said in the observations that ‘no nation –no country is made of or by one person.’
‘If we want to truly live up to the dream of Sonar Bangla as advocated by our Father of the Nation, we must keep ourselves free from this suicidal ambition and addiction of ‘I’ness. That only one person or one man did all this and etc,’ said the apex court in the related observations.
It said, ‘There is no doubt that the elected representatives of Awami League led the liberation struggle, but people from all walks of life, like labourers, workers, fishermen, housewives, prisoners, educationalists, students, industrialists, intellectuals, Police, Army, Ansars, EPR and supporters of other political parties participated, except few religiously fanatic ideologues and their evil companions.’
The verdict, written by Chief Justice SK Sinha, says, even the Constitution uses the expression
in the Preamble: ‘We the People’.
On July 3, a seven-member bench, chaired by the Chief Justice, in a brief order unanimously rejected a government appeal filed against High Court’s verdict that had struck down the 16th Amendment which empowered Parliament to remove Supreme Court judges as ‘unconstitutional’.
The court says, ‘Now that we are living in a free, independent and sovereign country, however, we are indulging into arrogance and ignorance which threaten the very precious tie and thread of ‘We’.
The court said ‘If we look at the example from USA’s town planning; they recognized the person who worked for their town planning.
‘For abolition of slavery, Mary Todd, wife of 16th President Abraham Lincoln, got recognition.
‘For the establishment of women rights there are other persons who got the recognition and they also remember with great acknowledgment four Army Generals.
The court says, ‘But in our country a disease has infected us and the name of that disease is ‘myopic politicization’.
‘This is a virus and unfortunately this has infected our political culture to such a length that many of our policy makers now are hardly able to see or envision a future meant for a nation, not for a person.
‘Due to this rotting disease, they have personified each and everything.
‘For their narrow and parochial party interest they have established a fake and ‘pseudo democracy’ taking the shameful unfair advantage of our Constitution - a Constitution written with the blood of our martyrs in 1971.’
The court said, ‘We must get rid of this obnoxious ‘our men’ doctrine and suicidal ‘I alone’
attitude. Not party allegiance or money but merit alone should be given the highest priority at all levels of national life and institution building. Person who is making tremendous sacrifice and humongous contribution for development and social progress must be recognized.
‘And in doing so we must only see his or her contribution to this society not to his political colour or inclination.
The court says, ‘If we cannot get ourselves out of this narrow parochialism and cannot overcome the greed of party
nepotisms, then this will be the biggest assault to the very foundation of our liberation war- and the rock solid idea of ‘We’ which brought us the long cherished independence and to immortalize this momentum, the word ‘we’ have been put in the very first sentence of our constitution as the very first word of this sagacious document.
The court said that lifelong political struggle of ‘Bangabandhu’ essentially epitomised him as a gladiator for establishing equal rights and equal recognition of all faiths and their followers. This notion of nonsegregation and non-communality worked as momentum for our liberation struggle.
In the preamble, it was clearly spelt out that the high ideals of nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism shall be the fundamental principles of the Constitution, the verdict said.
But by the Proclamations (Amendment) Order, 1977 the following words were added to the beginning of the constitution’s preamble, namely, “BISMILLAH-AR-RAHMAN-AR-RAHIM’, the court said.
The court said that in 2011, the Parliament brought Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution and made various significant and conspicuous changes. Although the Fifteenth Amendment abolished or substituted most of the provisions that were inserted by the martial law authority, it kept the religious invocation [BISMILLAH-AR-RAHMAN-AR-RAHIM.
‘It was a compromise with the martial law proclamation so far as the religion was concerned,’ court said rejecting attorney general Mahbubey Alam’s argument that the previous system of Chief Justice-led Supreme Judicial Council for removal of SC judges had a martial law concept and against the 1972 constitution.
The court said that through the 8th Amendment another martial law ruler had incorporated fundamental changes in the Constitution by incorporating a new clause as Article 2A of the Constitution.
The court said that This new Article introduced Islam as the State religion, which was not in the 1972 constitution.
Introduction of State religion was also in direct conflict with “secularism,” which was one of the fundamental principles of State policy in the 1972 Constitution.
‘ Despite Parliament revived “secularism” as one of the fundamental
principles of State
policy by passing the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 2011, it retained article 2A,’ said the court.
‘Thereby, the principle of secularism was totally compromised and thus buried the spirit of original constitution and liberation war, as was espoused in the 1972 constitution,’ the court said.