Custodial Death of Sultana Jasmine: HC rule on Rab action remains unresolved
Sultana Jasmine, 41, a land office employee in Naogaon, was picked up and detained by Rapid Action Battalion on March 22 last year. She died in Rab custody at Rajshahi Medical College Hospital two days later. Rab officers told doctors Jasmine had suffered a fall.
Jasmine did not have any cases against her at the time of detention. She was sued under the Digital Security Act a day after being picked up for allegedly "siphoning off money from job seekers using a Facebook account".
"She died due to torture in Rab custody. She had an injury mark on her head. Before detention, she was perfectly healthy," her son Shahed Hossain Saikat, a student of Chittagong University, had said.
On April 5 last year, the High Court bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Muhammad Mahbub Ul Islam issued a rule asking the authorities to explain why Jasmine's detention without a case should not be declared illegal and unconstitutional.
Nine months later, the rule remains unresolved due to reconstitution of the hearing jurisdiction of the HC bench, and no further action has been taken by the court.
The court at the time also asked the government to show causes as to why it should not be directed to take action against the Rab members who had detained her. The bench also directed the cabinet secretary to form a high-powered committee, including the chief judicial magistrate of Naogaon and a judicial officer nominated by the district judge, to investigate the incident.
Jasmine's "murder" in Naogaon tarnished the image of the country, Rab and the government, Rab director general M Khurshid Hossain reportedly told the parliamentary standing committee on the home ministry on April 5 last year.
"The [local] camp was involved in it. The battalion or the headquarters knew nothing," he said.
THE TIMELINE AFTER APRIL 5
The government's probe body submitted its report on August 17 last year to the HC.
On October 15 last year, the HC bench termed the probe committee's report vague and unsatisfactory as it failed to give any description of her arrest or any specific findings. It also set November 29 last year for the rule hearing.
However, as jurisdiction of the bench concerned has been reconstituted by the chief justice as a routine work, the HC is yet to hold hearing on the rule and deliver its verdict on the issue, said Deputy Attorney General Samarendranath Biswas.
It is uncertain when the HC will hold a hearing on the rule and deliver its judgement, as neither the attorney general's office nor the petitioner took any extensive move for quick disposal of the matter.
WHAT CAN HAPPEN NOW
If the petition and the rule are presented, another HC bench with the appropriate jurisdiction can hear and resolve the matter, said Samarendranath.
However, he said he has not yet received any instruction from the authorities concerned.
Manoj Kumar Bhowmick, the petitioner, said if the bench led by Justice Farah Mahbub is not granted jurisdiction to hear the matter again, he plans to file the petition before another HC bench in a few days.