Of all the members of the Constituent Assembly of Bangladesh, Suranjit Sengupta, Manabendra Narayan Larma, and Mohammad Abdul Aziz Chowdhury deserve a special mention for their distinguished role in the making of the Constitution.
In Bangladesh, there is a prevalent common perception that unjust or unequal treatment results in discrimination. For example, the High Court Division in the HRPB v. Jatiyo Sangsad [67 DLR (2015) 191] held that section 32Ka of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 was discriminatory because it created unjust classification (Para 26).
On 23 January 2020, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Gambia v. Myanmar delivered its order upholding The Gambia’s request for provisional measures.
Of late, the social media and news media in Bangladesh have been brimming with questions and concerns about The Gambia’s case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This essay will briefly address a few of such questions which are of legal nature.
With the serving of show-cause notices on Robi and Grameenphone as to why their licences will not be cancelled for not paying the so-called ‘dues’, the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) has come further closer to facing investment
While writing the majority opinion in the Government of Bangladesh and Others v Advocate Asaduzzaman Sidddiqui and Others (2017) CLR (Spl) 1 [hereinafter 'the 16th Amendment Case'],
In 2011, the parliament by the 15th constitutional amendment incorporated Article 7B in the Constitution. Article 7B provides that the
Anwar Hossain Chowdhury & Others v Bangladesh (1989) BLD (SPL) 1 (hereinafter '8th Amendment Case') marks the beginning of judicial review of constitutional amendment in Bangladesh. The 8th Amendment Case set forth the famous basic feature doctrine which laid down a test for determining substantive compatibility of any constitutional amendment vis-à-vis the Constitution (see Kawser Ahmed,
Of all the members of the Constituent Assembly of Bangladesh, Suranjit Sengupta, Manabendra Narayan Larma, and Mohammad Abdul Aziz Chowdhury deserve a special mention for their distinguished role in the making of the Constitution.
In Bangladesh, there is a prevalent common perception that unjust or unequal treatment results in discrimination. For example, the High Court Division in the HRPB v. Jatiyo Sangsad [67 DLR (2015) 191] held that section 32Ka of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2004 was discriminatory because it created unjust classification (Para 26).
On 23 January 2020, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Gambia v. Myanmar delivered its order upholding The Gambia’s request for provisional measures.
Of late, the social media and news media in Bangladesh have been brimming with questions and concerns about The Gambia’s case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This essay will briefly address a few of such questions which are of legal nature.
With the serving of show-cause notices on Robi and Grameenphone as to why their licences will not be cancelled for not paying the so-called ‘dues’, the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) has come further closer to facing investment
While writing the majority opinion in the Government of Bangladesh and Others v Advocate Asaduzzaman Sidddiqui and Others (2017) CLR (Spl) 1 [hereinafter 'the 16th Amendment Case'],
In 2011, the parliament by the 15th constitutional amendment incorporated Article 7B in the Constitution. Article 7B provides that the
Anwar Hossain Chowdhury & Others v Bangladesh (1989) BLD (SPL) 1 (hereinafter '8th Amendment Case') marks the beginning of judicial review of constitutional amendment in Bangladesh. The 8th Amendment Case set forth the famous basic feature doctrine which laid down a test for determining substantive compatibility of any constitutional amendment vis-à-vis the Constitution (see Kawser Ahmed,
This essay seeks to discuss briefly two fundamental issues concerned with judicial review of constitutional amendment in Bangladesh,
The then Chief Justice in the case of Abdul Mannan Khan v Bangladesh [2012] 64 DLR (AD) 169 noted that the 13th
