SALEEM ULLAH VS BANGLADESH 47 DLR 1995

 

Analysis of the Fact;

The petitioner found in the newspaper that the Government took the decision to participate in the UN sponsored multinational force to Haiti to help and maintain public safety and basic order after restoration of the legitimately elected Government of Haiti under the UN secretary council’s resolution no.940. It was also mentioned in the petition that Us Aircraft carrier was ready to sail for invasion of Haiti and the state department announced in Washington that seventeen countries including three NATO allies and Bangladesh had pledged a combined minimum of 1500 troops to assist a US led invasion of Haiti and the administration had been pushing hard to recruit troops to join America to oust Haiti’s military dictatorship. The leaders of Haiti had announced that they would counteract the foreign aggression. The decision was taken during the Autumn Session of the parliament without the assent of parliament and during the boycott of the parliament by the leaders of the opposition parties.

Argument of the petitioner:

It was argued that 

Ø  The decision to send troops to Haiti was violative of the article 63 of the Constitution because the decision taken to participate in the US led aggression was war in International Law.

Ø  As per the article 141(A) unless the President of Bangladesh was satisfied that there existed a grave situation threatening the economic life of the Bangladeshi by war or external aggression or internal disturbance no such decision could be taken.

Ø  The declaration of war was not in consonance with the view of fundamental principles of state policy.

Ø  The proclamation referred to in the article 141(1) must be laid before the parliament. The declaration by the President ipso facto had no constitutional validity unless the parliament assents to it.

Ø  The decision was against the article 25 and article 7 of our constitution.

Issue:

Whether the decision taken by the Government to send troops to Haiti is violative of the Fundamental principle of state policy and any other provision of our constitution ?

Decision:

The writ petition was rejected.

Reasoning behind the decision:

The decision was taken on the following grounds:

v  The decision was taken pursuant to the Resolution no.940 and Bangladesh being the member state has taken the decision within the authority of the constitutional framework and international commitments. So, the decision was not derogatory of the provision of article 7 and 25 of our constitution

v  There was no expression like war in the article 63 of the constitution and the news published in no ways takes precedence over the constitution and resolution of Security Council.

v  Sending of troops to Haiti by no stretch of imagination does threaten the security of economic life of Bangladesh or any part thereof.

Principle:

Sending troops to Haiti as a part of international force is not a derogation of the principle of article 25 of our constitution.

Importance of this case:

This is an important case because in its judgment Court gave its decision on the basis of Article 25 of our constitution. Though fundamental principles of state policy are not judicially enforceable according to the provision of article 8(2) courts in this case has tried to enforce of the principles of Part II. So, it is a significant decision regarding to the constitutional interpretation which now bears the notion that even a bar is mentioned in article 8(2) principles of Part II can be judicially enforceable to some extent because both fundamental principles in Part II and fundamental rights in Part III are inseparable from each other and they can not be thought to be isolated from each other rather they altogether has formed an integral part of our constitution.