Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon'ble Members, I am to give you a decision today on a subject discussed yesterday. Hon'ble Members had doubt whether Bills on many corrections on Constitutional Amendments will be raised today. Therefore, I shall let you know my decision on the point of order raised yesterday.

The following Members of the Parliament have served notices proposing for Amendment of the Constitution: Mr. Sudhangsha Shakhor Halder, one, Mr. Asaduzzaman, one, Mr. Nurul Islam Moni, four, Mr. Rashed Khan Menon, four, Major (Retd.) Hafizuddin, one, and Mr. Abdus Samad Azad, one. Of these twelve Bills for Constitutional Amendment all except the last one will be sent to the Secretary for 15 days written notice under Article 72(1) of the Rules of Procedure. But only the Bengali versions of the Bills have been sent and the Secretariat has drawn the attention of the Hon'ble Members to the Article 153(2) of the Constitution and has asked for English version as well. As a result there was a doubt as to whether the Bills would be taken up today (25-4-91) and Hon'ble Member Mr. Rashed Khan Manon and few other Hon'ble Members drew my attention to this.

Hon'ble Member Mr. Rashed Khan Manon, Mr. Nurul Islam Moni, Mr. Suranjit Sen Gupta, Mr. Shdhangsha Shakhor Halder, Barrister Jamiruddin Sarker, Mr. Maudud Ahmed and Mr. Salauddin Quader Chowdhury have drawn my attention to different Constitutional provisions of the Rules of Procedure and other Rules saying that there is no legal binding on supplying of copies in other languages than Bangla while placing a Constitutional Amendment Bill. Hon'ble Member Mr. Rashed Khan Manon stated in his statement, that he placed a Constitutional Amendment Bill in the Third National Parliament and for that only Bangla version was submitted and the question of supplying an English version did not arise at that time. It could not be ascertained in such a short time as to whether the English version was at all needed for discussion or at all it was discussed. But available record shows that no Private Members’ Bill on Constitutional Amendment was discussed in the Second National Parliament. The Article 142 of the Constitution clearly status the procedures how to amend the Constitution.

Article 3 of the Constitution says that the language of the Republic will be Bangla and the Article 153 (2) of the Constitution says, " There shall be an authentic text of this Constitution in Bengali, and an authentic text of an authorised translation in English, both of which shall be certified as such by the Speaker of the Constituent Assembly.

Here the word "Gano Parishad" has to be taken into consideration. This Constitution was jointly compiled and accepted on November 4, 1972 and it came into effect from December 16, 1972 and the Gano Parishad got dissolved from that day. Interim and temporary provisions have been incorporated in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution which says, "A text certified in accordance which clause (2) shall be conclusive evidence of the provisions of this Constitution: Provided that in the event of conflict between the Bengali and the English text, the Bengali text shall prevail".

Under the circumstances we have to explain Article 153(2) of the Constitution in the overall context. The "Gano Parishad" no longer exists. Therefore the general explanation of Article 153(2) may be that there would be an authentic version of the Constitution and another authentic English translation to be preserved in the Parliament and to be attested by the Speaker and the amended chapters/ Articles/ clauses to be preserved in the same way and that was the wish of the framers of the Constitution.

On the basis of the above discussion I think that the Hon'ble Members should submit an English version of the Bangla text which they have submitted to the Secretariat for Constitutional Amendment. The Bills for Constitutional Amendment so far brought from first to tenth and accepted by this Parliament have been presented in two languages. These have been done in conformity with Article 153(2) of the Constitution so that both the authentic versions can be preserved in the Parliament.

This has got another aspect. The Article 153(3) says, "A text certified in accordance which clause (2) shall be conclusive evidence of the provisions of this Constitution: Provided that in the event of conflict between the Bengali and the English text, the Bengali text shall prevail".

We should remember that with the approval of the Amendment of any Article of the Constitution it becomes part of the Constitution and for maintaining conformity both Bangla and English Versions of the proposed Amendment are needed and that is why the Parliament Secretariat has requested the Hon'ble Members to supply an English version of their proposal along with Bangla version for Constitutional Amendment.

The Hon'ble Members can do it at any time. However, since the Bills for Constitutional Amendment are Private Members’ Bills, those can be placed in the Parliament only after scrutiny by the Committee for Private Members’ Bill under Rule 223(1) of the Rules of Procedure. The Committee was formed only yesterday (24.4.91) and it was not possible to examine those before framing today’s programme. Therefore, I am sorry for not being able to include those Bills in today’s agenda.

[First session of the Fifth Parliament, April 25, 1991]

Mr. Speaker: I will not give you permission unless you show me the written authority because this is too much. Where are we going in my opinion? Hon'ble Member today I am giving permission for the last time but please ascertain that all the Hon'ble Ministers have to be present or they will give me written intimation or they will authorise in writing that such and such Member will bring it.

Barrister Aminul Huq (State Minister for Law and Justice): Hon'ble Minister for Law and Justice has permitted me to present the Bill in his absence. Now I seek your permission to present this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: You are permitted.

[Fourth session of the Fifth Parliament, January 8, 1992]

Mirza Golam Hafiz: This is a personal reply and it is found in the Rules of Procedure. Last Wednesday my Bill on The Supreme Court Judges (Remuneration and Privileges) (Amendment), 1991 an Amendment on an earlier Bill on Supreme Court Judges (Remuneration and Privileges) Ordinance 1978, was raised for seeking permission for introduction but I was not present as I had to leave Dhaka four to five days back. That is why I requested the Hon'ble State Minister of my Ministry to seek the permission of the Speaker to introduce it.

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Minister please proceed. I am also getting prepared to reply to your question.

Mirza Golam Hafiz: It will be injustice to me if you do not give due attention to me. After all I am the Law Minister of the country and everyone should listen to me. When the Bill was raised, my State Minister sought your permission which was refused saying that written permission was needed. It is correct that he did not have written permission. Finally you gave him the permission saying that it was the last chance as reported in the newspapers.

What I want to tell you is that nowhere it is found in the Rule that written permission is required. First, written notice is served and then usually it comes up and this is the tradition. The proceedings of this session and the previous sessions will indicate that many Ministers with your permission introduced the Bills of their colleagues. This is not at all new. Moreover, in the countries where parliamentary practices are followed like India, U.K., Pakistan such a practice is in vogue. Even this House has been following this practice. All my old colleagues in the House will agree with me that whenever any Minister seeks such permission, it is normally granted, for which written permission is not required. Previously no warning was also given. Now warning has been issued on this particular Bill. I have already noted your observation. Rule 75(1) says, " A Minister may move for leave to introduce a Bill after giving to the Secretary seven day's written notice of his intention to do so ... ".

If notice is to be given, it should be a written one. But written permission is not required. This practice is followed in Bangladesh and throughout the world. The proceedings of my time from April 4, 1979 to February 1982 will provide many examples. The Speaker has many residuary powers under Rule 316 which says, "Any matter arising in connection with the business of the House, and its Committees for which no specific provision exists in these Rules shall be decided by the Speaker and his decision shall be final."

You can apply this if you want to enforce the presence of the Minister. After all the Hon'ble Speaker is to help the Members and he has the discretion. I am happy that you have given permission but I regret your observation.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Selim, please sit down. He is very Senior Minister and let us hear him. Hon'ble Minister please continue.

Mirza Golam Hafiz: I must be allowed to speak. I am the senior most Member of this Parliament. I was a Speaker of this House and served this Parliament as the longest period Speaker. Nobody has served for a longer period than me as the Speaker. You must give me hearing and give any Ruling you like. As Law Minister it is my duty to see that the Rules of Procedure are followed. I beg to state that I want to introduce this Bill and asking for the written permission is uncalled for and has no relationship with the Bill.

I am not only the oldest Parliamentarian in this country. I was also a Member in 1945 and Mr. Abdus Samad was my colleague at that time. If my State Minister cannot introduce a Bill, cannot place it to you, what job will he do? Your observations are unfortunate and I would humbly request you to expunge these words from the proceedings.

Mr. Speaker: Kindly allow me to speak. Let me give a reply to him and after that you will put your supplementary questions. Hon'ble Minister you are quite elderly and respected. We all honour you. You were our former Speaker. I appreciate your sentiment and if you are hurt by my legal acts, I am really sorry. But whatever I said and done was all as per the legal provisions. I am reading out the whole thing to you. You kindly go through section 2 of the Rules of Procedure. We must follow it and everything should be conducted as per the Rules of Procedure.

Member-in-charge means in the case of a Government Bill any Minister and in the case of any other Bill, the Member who has introduced it. In the case of a Bill a Member who has introduced it to you that or any other Member authorised by him in writing assume charge of the Bill in his absence.

Next comes Rule 75 relating to Government Bill which says that "If any Minister wants permission to introduce a Bill, he will have to give a written notice to the Secretary giving seven days time. But the Speaker on the basis of sufficient grounds can suspend this Rule and allow permission even for a shorter notice.

The notice has to be supported by a copy of the Bill and a statement saying the reasons and if the Bill is required to have a recommendation of the Hon'ble President under Constitutional provision the Minister has to say it clearly. That the recommendation of the Hon'ble President has been obtained for introducing the Bill. The Bill be included in the day’s programme reserved for Government Bills. Now when the call will come for introducing the Bill under Rule 75(4), the Member-in-charge will seek permission.

Here you were the Member-in-charge and the Bill was introduced by you. Then come into Rule 79 which says that no Member other than the Member-in-charge can propose that the Bill be accepted for consideration or passed. There is no provision of permission here. I read from Mr. Kaul. You will see that the Speaker refused a Deputy Minister to introduce a Bill. Hon'ble Minister I will learn from you definitely. Now I read it.

"On the day approved for introduction of the Bill, the Speaker calls the Minister-in- Charge who moves the motion for leave to introduce the Bill. After the Speaker has put the question and the motion is adopted, the Bill is at the introduction stage, the Minister who has given notice for leave to introduce a Bill can alone introduce it (kindly give stress the world "alone") can alone introduce it, unless he has deviously written to the Speaker to allow another Minister to move for leave to introduce the Bill on his behalf."

Then coming down, "Since the Minister in whose name the India Tariff (Amendment) Bill, 1969, was not present in the House and had not previously written to the Speaker, the Deputy Minister concerned was not permitted to introduce the Bill on behalf of the Minister."

Therefore, Hon'ble Minister I am telling you with due respect that any Minister can definitely introduce a Bill but he will require the authority of the Hon'ble Minister who is in charge and under whose signature the notice has been given. In the day's programme it is written that such Minister will introduce such Bill and if the relevant Minister remains absent and nobody is authorised to introduce the Bill, what will happen, how will the announcement be made? On the other hand if a written permission is given by the Minister-in-charge, it will be easy to announce that such Minister/State Minister/Deputy Minister will introduce the Bill on behalf of the Minister-in-charge. That is why I have given the decision for written permission at least for the convenience of our Secretariat people so that they can conveniently inform the Speaker.

Mr. Golam Hafiz: I do not want to argue with you. I am sorry. I do not want to protest nor to create any inconvenience for you. I wanted only to draw your attention to the facts. Even I have introduced Bills in this House in the absence of somebody and with your verbal permission.

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Minister I will personally talk to you.

Mirza Golam Hafiz: Please listen to me. This type of mistake did not happen automatically and it happened earlier also. I am sure the Speaker will rectify the mistake as it is his duty. Nobody has challenged his Ruling. When the Members side-track the legal path, it is the duty of the Speaker to bring them back on the track. I think you have brought an established practice to a right path through your Ruling. Everybody will now obey it and the Ministers will also be careful from now. But the observations from the Chair are not proper and unfortunate and I like to draw your attention to that.

Mr. Speaker: As I have told you earlier, I respect you and if you are hurt by this, I am sorry for that.

Mirza Golam Hafiz: I have nothing to say about the Ruling. But the observations are not proper. For the sake of dignity of the House and respect for the Ruling, I would request you to expunge this from the proceedings that is my request to you.

Mr. Speaker : Mr. Salauddin Quader Chowdhury.

Mr. Salauddin Quader Chowdhury (Chittagong-6): The Hon'ble Law Minister is a very respectable Member of Parliament and also a Minister and he was my first Speaker. When I first became a Member of Parliament in 1979, he was our Speaker. He was in politics with my father. But will his today’s proposal as the Law Minister to expunge the Speaker’s statement from the proceedings enhance the image of the Parliament? Secondly your Ruling quoting the Rules of Procedure and Mr. Kaul has established that the Rule has not been introduced. The procedure has to be revived and the Minister-in-charge and the Member-in-charge alone, as Mr. Kaul has stated and you also put emphasis, has to move the Bill all over again, Mr. Speaker. There is no alternative.

Hon'ble Speaker, What is the central theme here? Maybe the Hon'ble Minister has side-tracked it. You have painted a picture of the central theme as you are the protector of our rights. Hon'ble Speaker, I am sorry that such an old and senior Minister has to go to dig canals leaving us all here.

Mr. Speaker: Let us stop here.

Mr. Salauddin Quader Chowdhury: Hon'ble Speaker, you please expunge it from the proceedings as per his proposal.

Col (Retd.) Oli Ahmed (Communication Minister): Hon'ble Speaker, it is correct that Mirza Golam Hafiz had to engage himself in digging canals at the old age because as a Minister, during the time of Jatiyo Party, Mr. Salauddin Quader Chowdhury did not do his job.

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Chief Whip.

Khandaker Delwar Hossain (Chief Whip): Thank you Mr. Speaker. You are the custodian of the House and the supreme interpreter of the Rules of Procedure. You are also a senior and experienced advocate of the Supreme Court. You know the decision of the High Court is sometimes overruled by a Judge if he deems it fit. Since your decision of today will have an implication in the future about the activities of the sovereign Parliament, I intend to say a few words as the Chief Whip which you may have to consider. You have correctly drawn the attention of the whole House to the definition and the word Member-in-charge. The Member-in-charge means, in the case of a Government Bill any Minister and in the case of any other Bill that is not our concern, as this is a Government Bill, the Member who has introduced it or any other Member authorised by him in writing to assume the charge of the Bill in his absence.

Khandaker Delwar Hossain: I bow down to your observation, you are our custodian and your Ruling will not allow anybody to introduce a Bill other than a particular Minister of that Ministry whether state or senior does not matter.

Mr. Speaker: I did not say so that nobody else will be able to introduce a Bill. He will definitely be able to do so but only an authorization will be required to introduce his Bill. I do not say that only that particular Hon'ble Minister can introduce.

[Fourth session of the Fifth Parliament, January 12, 1992]

Mr. Speaker: I am now giving my Ruling on this. On the stay of Prof. Golam Azam in Bangladesh and the implementation of the judgment of the Gano Adalat a total of 55 adjournment motions have been tabled and two Hon'ble Members have proposed discussions under Rule 146 and Rule 147 of the Rules of Procedure. The theme of the notices are the same although languages are different. But the subject matter being under sub judice of the Courts under Rules 63, 147 and 149 and also similar objections being raised by Hon'ble Minister Mr. Nazmul Huda in the Parliament, I gave a decision to have a general discussion on the subject exercising the power of the Speaker under Rules 315 and 316 of the Rules of Procedure. There was good reasons for taking such a decision. The meeting of the Business Advisory Committee held on April 10 in a cordial atmosphere decided to discuss the issue of Prof. Golam Azam in the Parliament for the greater interest of the country. I also personally think so. But since there was limitation of the Rules 146 and 147 of the Rules of Procedure, I had to exercise the power of the Speaker to come to a decision after discussion. As raised by Mr. Shahjahan Siraj at the beginning of the discussion and subsequently by few others, I decided so and expressed the hope for coming of a concerted decision. The discussion continued for ten hours in the place of three hours in four days.

For the greater interest of the country sufficient time was given for a rapprochement between the Government and the Opposition but no result was achieved. Therefore, I propose to the House to take a decision on the basis of votes. Those who are in favour of voting please say, "Yes" and those who think that voting is not needed for a decision please say "No". The House thinks that since there are two proposals, let us take a decision on the basis of voting.

I am going to place the first proposal for voting. First the proposal placed by the Leader of the Opposition Sheikh Hasina: "Hon'ble Speaker, I urge upon the Government to set up a tribunal under the International Crime Tribunal Act, 1973 of the Bangladesh Parliament and try Golam Azam on the basis of the charges against him for acting against the freedom struggle, waging war and organising genocide in 1971, working against Bangladesh even after the establishment of the country for restoring the so-called East Pakistan and involving in illegal political activities for capturing the State power even being a Pakistani citizen as the charges framed by the Gano Adalat on March 26, 1992. I hope the relevant Ministry of the Government will prosecute and arrange the trial of Golam Azam and his associates. The National Assembly regrets the filing of disgraceful cases against the organisers of the Gano Adalat which actually reflected the aspiration of the people and urges the Government to withdraw the case".

Those who support this proposal please say "Yes". There was none in favour of this proposal and so it is rejected. Since there was none in favour of this proposal, the Parliament, therefore, rejected it.

On the other hand the other proposal placed by Prof. Dr. Badrudoza Chowdhury is as follows: "Bangladesh has been achieved after the sacrifice of 30 lakhs people and democracy has been established through nine-year long straggle and sacrifices and after the ouster of the autocrat a sovereign Parliament has been elected through a free and fair election and each and every Member of this Parliament is oath-bound for protecting the sanctity of the Constitution and fully establish the Rule of law for ensuring justice to all citizens and non-citizens as per the Constitution. Therefore, the issue of non-citizen Golam Azam should be settled quickly and following the accepted Constitutional means".

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Members, I have already given the Ruling earlier that the decision will be taken as per the desire of the Parliament. I did not want to give a Ruling. You all wanted voting. Now I place the second proposal for voting. Since there was none against the proposal of Prof. Dr. Badrudoza Chowdhury, so it is accepted.

[Fifth session of the Fifth Parliament on April 19, 1992]

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Members the problem of car parking and the tunnel needs to be solved immediately. The matter should be explained. The circular which has been issued now was issued earlier also. But it was really never enforced and that has created the problem. Therefore, the Hon'ble Members can park their cars in the tunnel in the same way as it was done before and necessary instruction has been issued to that effect. The Secretariat will look after the security aspect. Instruction has been issued to amend the relevant chapter accordingly. The Hon'ble Members, Secretaries of different Ministries and other VIPs will enter the Parliament Building through PE level-1 and keep their transports in the tunnel of the South Plaza. The ambulances and the fire fighting vans will also remain there and no other cars will be allowed there.

Sometimes visitors’ cars create inconveniences. If you agree I have a suggestion to use the monogram of the Parliament to be supplied by the Parliament Secretariat. When you leave the car, please keep the monogram inside the car so that nobody else can occupy that place. I am sure this will remove the inconveniences.

[Sixth session of the Fifth Parliament, June 25, 1992]

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I wanted a cordial atmosphere so that I don't have to give my Ruling. But as I find I have to give the Ruling, I have expunged three unparliamentary words from the statement of Hon'ble Minister Barrister Nazmul Huda given on 5^th of this month.

From the statement of Hon'ble Minister Barrister Nazmul Huda made yesterday on 6.7.92 this unparliamentary word ...... has been expunged.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his yesterday's statement said, "policy of polluting parliamentary atmosphere is being pursued intentionally" and the words "policy of polluting" have been expunged as unparliamentary words.

Two words from the statement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition Dr. Badrudoza Chowdhury and ... from the statement of Mr. Tofail Ahmed have been expunged.

[Sixth session of the Fifth Parliament, July 7, 1992]

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Deputy Leader of the Opposition, please sit down. I am not going to allow all these things. These are all disputed matters you are raising now. No, I am going to give the Ruling. Hon'ble Members no, you have no right today to speak. I will not give the floor to anyone. Mr. Shahjahan Siraj, please sit down. I am going to give my decision on this. He has raised a point or order, I have heard it.

Hon'ble Members no-confidence notices were given to the Secretary on 5-8-92 under Sub-Rule 159(1) of the Rules of Procedure by the Hon'ble Members Abdus Samad Azad, Mr. Shahjahan Siraj, Mr. Rashed Khan Menon, Mr. Shamsuzzoha, Mr. Monirul Huq Chowdhury, Mr. Suranjit Sen Gupta and Mohammad Abdul Hafiz. I have examined the notices and the subject matter is the same, as the language and use of words. The only difference is that the same notice has been signed by the Hon'ble Members with a forwarding letter which says, "Sir, I am giving you a notice seeking permission to raise a no-confidence motion against the Cabinet of the People's Republic of Bangladesh under Rule 159(1) of the Rules of Procedure in the present session of the Parliament. A copy of the no-confidence motion is enclosed. You are requested to kindly obtain permission of the Speaker and oblige thereby".

In the forwarding letters the following prayer has been incorporated showing the causes of no-confidence motion: "Therefore, a no confidence motion is being brought against the Cabinet expressing no confidence against the Cabinet of the peoples Republic of Bangladesh."

It may be mentioned here that in the no-confidence motion no permission has been sought anywhere for raising the motion expressing no confidence. But any Member can seek permission to the Secretary giving at least three days notice for raising no confidence motion against the Cabinet under Rule 150(1) of the Rules of Procedure. It may be further mentioned that the Hon'ble Members in their no confidence notices have directly raised the no-confidence motion instead of seeking permission for raising the no-confidence motion. Thus the notice is faulty and the Rule 159(1) has not been followed. But in the forwarding notice it has been said that notice is being given for seeking permission for raising no confidence motion in the present session. I want to read both the forwarding notice and the no-confidence motion together for the sake of fair consideration and justice and in that ground I tend to reject the notices only on technical grounds.

The second thing which has drawn my attention which has also been highlighted by the Treasury Bench is the Rule 159(5) of the Rules of Procedure which says, "If the Speaker is of opinion that the motion is in order and is not an abuse of the provisions of Sub-Rule(1) he shall read the motion to the House and shall request those Members who are in favour of leave being granted to rise in their places …".

It must be ensured as to whether the no-confidence motion is the abuse of the Rules and procedures. The Daily Ittefaq of August 9 reported that the Awami League, NAP, JSD, Ganatantri Party, Workers Party and CPB who moved the no confidence motion were well aware that the motion would not fall the Government. It was intended to bring the Government to the peoples way instead of too much politicization but the Government took it seriously.

Another applicant Mr. Suranjit Sen Gupta said, as the Sangbad reported on August 4, 1992, said "we know well that the Government has a clear majority in the House; still we will bring the no confidence motion to reflect the wishes of the people". The Jatiyo Party Leader Mr. Moudud Ahmed had almost the similar view that it was not the question of victory or defeat. It was rather to remind the Government of their lapses.

All these statements indicate that the Opposition wanted to send a message to the Government or censure the Government and was not that eager to move the no confidence motion. Most of the subjects mentioned in the no-confidence motion have already been discussed in the House and message has been sent to the Government. Similar message can be sent in future as well through legal procedures.

The Government side has drawn my attention to the fact the since the applications were not willing to move the no confidence motion rather they were more interested to send a message to the Government, it is a mere abuse of the Rule 159(5) of the Rules of Procedure and therefore, the notices warrant rejection.

Thus it is found that the statements of the Government side are reasonable and accepting these arguments the notices can be rejected under 159(5), similar no-confidence motions were never entertained in Bangladesh and ever during the time of East Pakistan, taking into consideration the democratic norms. Now the expectation of the people is to institutionalize democracy, to maintain its continuity and to further nourish it.

The democratic norms should be sustained, tolerance must be exercised and democratic practices should be continued, considering that I am inclined to permit to raise the no-confidence motion although there are several procedural lapses in it.

Hon'ble Minister Barrister Rafiqul Islam Mia of the treasury bench has drawn my attention to Articles 55, 56, 57 and 58 of the Constitution saying that there is no provision in the Constitution under which the no confidence motion can be moved. The Article 57(2) of the Constitution says that if the confidence of the House is lost, the Prime Minister will resign or send a written advice to the Hon'ble President for dissolving the Parliament. If the President is convinced that no other Member of the Hose is capable to have the support of the majority, he will dissolve the House. If the confidence of the House is lost, the Prime Minister will resign but it is not written in the Constitution as to how that will be ascertained, although Rule 159 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament has defined the procedure. Therefore, although the Constitution has not said anything categorically about the no-confidence motion, reading together the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure will lead one to the conclusion that bringing a no confidence motion will not be illegal.

It has said from the Government side that under Article 70 of the Constitution any Member will loose his Membership if he votes against the Party with whose nomination he has been elected and the present Government has 170 nominated Members and they will in no way vote against the Government and as such the no confidence motion has been brought only to create an embarrassing situation for the Government. The Article 70 of the Constitution will not be applicable in giving a decision regarding permission in raising the no confidence motion.

I have briefly stated the facts leading to the decision under Rule 159 of the Rules of Procedure and considering every aspect I have decided to accept the no confidence motion for the interest of institutionalisation of democracy, maintaining its continuity and to further nourish it.

Let me quote Mr. Kaul on no-confidence motion;

"There is no restriction on the moving of more than one no-confidence motion in a session, although this has not been done so far, but the second motion is admissible only if it raises new matters not covered by the discussion on the previous motion.

Normally, the Opposition act with responsibility and do not bring forward such a motion for the second time in the same session. But if something serious has happened since the first motion was sedated and the Government is subject to criticism in the public and in the House, which has tended to undermine the credibility of council of Ministers, the Opposition may give a notice of another no-confidence motion. The Speaker, on receipt of such a motion, may bring it before the House and Rule it out of order if, in his opinion, it is an abuse of procedures and calculated to obstruct the business of the House on a frivolous or an ordinary matter for which other procedures are available. When a number of no-confidence motions are received for the same sitting, and if two or more are held to be in order, they are taken up one in the order of their receipt in point of time. In case leave of the House for the moving of the first motion is not granted, the second motions taken up. As soon as leave of the House to the moving of any motion is granted, the remaining motions, if any, are kept pending until the one to the moving of which leave of the House has been granted is disposed of. However, when notices of several no-confidence motions are received and it is agreed by consent of all Members tabling those motions that only a particular notice might be taken up, other notices not being brought before the House. The first signatory of the agreed motion is permitted to ask for leave of the House to move his motion."

Since all the notices are the same in language and content although given by Hon'ble Members from different Parties, I shall take appropriate action on the notice submitted to the Secretary first under Rule 159(5) of the Rules of Procedure and once it is approved there will be no need to raise any more notices on the same subject. If it is not approved then the next one can be taken up under Rule 159(5) and if that is approved, other notices will not be raised and as such other notices will be redundant. On the other hand, if the Hon'ble Members who have submitted the notices tell me which one I should take up under Rule 159(5) of the Rules of Procedure, I will take action accordingly. For this the session of the Parliament can be adjourned for a short period.

[Sixth session of the Fifth Parliament, August 9, 1992]

Mr. Jubed Ali (Netrokona-3): Many Members have spoken on this Bill. I think it needs detailed discussion as it is a new law, we should not hurry it.

Hon'ble Speaker: On this Bill I want to draw your attention to the Article 82 of our Constitution which says, "No Money Bill, nor any Bill which involves expenditures from public money" shall be introduced into Parliament except on the recommendation of the President." Hon'ble Speaker, a lot of money is involved in this Bill but we are not sure whether the recommendation of the President under Article 82 is there or not. Therefore, there is no scope for discussion about this Bill in the Parliament as it has not been placed properly. So this Bill may be sent back for President’s recommendation and reintroduction.

Dr. Kazi Abu Yousuf (Faridpur-5): Hon'ble Speaker, the Bill for setting up of the Bangladesh Open University introduced by the Hon'ble Education Minister will be soon passed. But why this hurry when the entire education is now in a very bad-condition. People are gradually losing faith in our education system starting from primary to the University level. First, we will have to regain the confidence of our people in our education system.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Education Minister Mr. Jamiruddin Sarker.

Mr. Jamiruddin Sarker: Hon'ble Speaker, I want to inform the Hon'ble Opposition Members that President's consent has been obtained under Article 83.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Minister has said that he himself obtained the consent of the President.

Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim (Gopalgonj-2): Hon'ble Speaker, thank you. No Bill involving money can be introduced without the permission of the President. The Education Minister has informed that the President has given him permission, but where is the copy of this permission? I would request you to adjourn the House and introduce a fresh Bill after obtaining written permission of the President.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon'ble Deputy Leader of the House, the floor is yours.

Dr. Badrudoza Chowdhury (Deputy Leader of the House): Hon'ble Speaker, the consent of the President is a must under Article 82 of the Constitution and in this case it is not there possibly as a printing mistake. And if it is so the decision of the Speaker will clarify the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon'ble Members it is already late at night. Please just a minute, I shall investigate it, Hon'ble Minister will speak.

Barrister Jamiruddin Sarker (Education Minister): Mr. Speaker, I have personally obtained it. It must be somewhere, misplaced somewhere. Please adjourn the House today and we can do it tomorrow.

[Sixth session of the Fifth Parliament, August 10, 1992]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon'ble Members we have discussed in details the Open University Bill, 1992 and the question arose as to whether Rule 75(2) of the Rules of Procedure has been followed? I want to examine the matter before giving a Ruling and I hope nobody will have any objection.

Mr. Animul Huq (State Minister for Law and Justice): Hon'ble Speaker, thank you very much. The question now being discussed is that no Bill can be introduced without the recommendation of the President. In this connection I want to quote from Mr. Kaul and Mr. Shakdher (page 451), "In the case of a Government Bill, the recommendation of President may, however, be obtained while discussion on the Bill continues."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon'ble Members, I have seen this. I want to postpone the discussion and the decision will be taken later.

[Sixth session of the Fifth Parliament, August 11, 1992]

Hon'ble Speaker: All the Ordinances (1, 2, 3, 4) to be introduced today be treated as laid in agreement with the Hon'ble Speaker of the Indian Lok Sabha.

[Seventh session of the Fifth Parliament October 11, 1992]

Barrister Jamiruddin Sarker (Education Minister): Hon'ble Speaker, our Deputy Leader read it out the other day and Mr. Halder and other friends agreed. Now I am reading it out. Prior permission of the Hon'ble President is required for introducing a Bill having monetary involvement from the Treasury. I sent the proposal to the Hon'ble Prime Minister who signed it on 20-6-92 and Hon'ble President signed it on 21-6-92. So Hon'ble Speaker now I want to introduce the Bill with your permission.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the recommendation is there and we can start discussion.

Barrister Moudud Ahmed (Noakhali-5): All Bills need the recommendation of the President under Article 40.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon'ble Member, I fully agree with you.

[Seventh session of the Fifth Parliament, October 14, 1992]

Hon'ble Speaker: Hon'ble Members, Hon'ble State Minister for Finance Mr. Mujibur Rahman introduced the Excise and Salt Act 1992 for further Amendment on 2-11-92 and there were several proposals including seeking public opinion.

While placing the proposal for seeking public opinion, Hon'ble Member Maulana Abdus Sattar drew the attention to the fact that it has been mentioned in para-2 that the Bill became effective from July 1, 1992 which is totally illegal and against the Constitution. Law Minister and few other Ministers and Members explained the legal position on this which are as follows:

i) No Ordinance or Bill relating to imposition of taxes can be introduced with retrospective effect.

ii) Hon'ble President promulgated the concerned Ordinance No 8, 1992 on September 27 and the Ordinance was made effective from July one, 1992. Since the Parliament was in session on July 1, 1992, the question is whether it can be retrospective instead of prospective under Article 93 of the Constitution.

iii) Since it has been clearly written in Article 83 of the Constitution that no tax can be imposed without a law passed in the Parliament, whether the present Bill can be made effective from retrospective date that is July 1^st, 1992.

iv) Since the present Bill is a money Bill, it requires the approval of the President.

I have studied the above issues and the relevant Articles of the Constitution. About retrospective, effect, my decision is that there is no restriction on making Ordinances by the President or enacting law by the Parliament except penal laws. In this respect Articles 83 and 93 of the Bangladesh Constitution and Articles 245, 246 and 247 of the Indian Constitution are the same. Articles 77 and 79 of the Pakistan Constitution are also the same. This is an accepted fact in this sub continent that enacting laws including imposition of taxes can be done with retrospective effect except penal laws.

The Higher Court in Bangladesh. India and Pakistan have given many decisions on this on the basis of which Mr. Durgadas Basu in his book "Shorter Constitution of India" (10^th Edition at page 710) stated "Competence to make retrospective legislation. 1. The power of Parliament and the State Legislature to make laws is conferred by Articles 245. 246 and 248. There is nothing in the Articles to provide that the Indian Legislatures do not possess the right to make retrospective legislation which every sovereign Legislature possesses. The power to make a law includes the power to give it retrospective legislation that is contained in Article 20 (1), viz., that it cannot make retrospective penal laws. Any other law may, therefore, be made retrospective under the Constitution, including tax laws, provided no fundamental right is infringed by reason of taking away a vested right by the retrospective legislation. Though in construing a Statute, a Court acts on the presumption that the Legislature did not intend to impair existing rights and obligations (other than procedural). Where the Legislature expressly gives retrospective effect to its enactment and the language is clear, the Court has to give effect to such retrospective operation, however harsh might be its effect."

There is no difference between the Article 93 of the Bangladesh Constitution and Articles 245, 246 and 248 of the Indian Constitution. If Articles 83 and 93 are taken together it is found that the Hon'ble President can promulgate Ordinance with retrospective effect. The Hon'ble President has been given the power to promulgate Ordinance with retrospective effect as the Parliament has the power to enact law. Therefore the Ordinance 8 of 1992 has been promulgated by the Hon'ble President as per the Constitution. Many such Ordinances have been promulgated in this sub continent. Whether this Bill needs President's permission before consideration by the Parliament will depend on as to whether this is a Money Bill under Article 81 of the Constitution. I think this is a moneylender Article 82 of the Constitution. However, a certificate has been obtained today from the Ministry of Finance. Mr. Kaul in his book, "Practice and Procedure of Parliament" has mentioned at page 451 "In the case of a Government Bill the recommendation of the President may however, be obtained while discussion of the Bill continues."

Therefore, the certificate is acceptable and it will be attached to the Bill.

So, I think there is no obstacle in considering the present Bill introduced as an Amendment of the Finance Bill and as such there is no legal complication. Therefore, it can be considered as per the Rules of Procedure.

[Seventh session of the Fifth Parliament, November 5, 1992]

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Members, I have been trying my best to perform the assigned job with utmost sincerity for further strengthening democracy. In a parliamentary system the role played both by the Government and that of the Opposition are equally important and we all have equal responsibility in protecting democracy in the country.

Two proposals on special privilege relating to the Leader of the House and Prime Minister and subsequently the Leader of the Opposition have created an unwanted situation which could be a crisis. Considering the country's interest and also for the sake of democracy I invited a few Leaders of both the Parties to resolve the issue amicably and I am happy that they have finally come to a united decision after thoroughly discussing the matter. Now I hope that the Hon'ble Member's of the Opposition will join the session immediately for institutionalizing democracy and for greater interest of the country.

Hon'ble Members, on the basis of the united decision, there will be no need for discussion of the special privilege motions on Leader of the Opposition as well as on the Leader of the House. I have given the above decision reconsidering my earlier decision given on November 22 on the statement of the Leader of the House on the basis united decision.

[Twelfth session of the Fifth Parliament, November 28, 1993]

Mr. Speaker: Hon'ble Members, yesterday I was supposed to give a decision on a matter which I am giving you today.

It may be mentioned here that the words "such Ordinances have the like force of law as an Act of Parliament" if properly interpreted will be like that if the Parliament can enact law with retrospective effect, the President can also promulgate Ordinances with retrospective effect if the matter is very urgent and the situation demands so. Because he considered it to be necessary to give retrospective effect. Here there is reason to accept that the power of the Parliament to enact law and that of the President to promulgate Ordinance are identical, since Parliament is the sole authority to enact law. That is why several conditions have been imposed on the promulgation of Ordinance and additional words have been added under clauses 2,3 and 4 of the Article 93 of the Constitution.

Article 123(2) of the Indian Constitution says, "An Ordinance promulgated under this Article shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament". Mr. Durgadas Basu at page 472 of his book "Shorter Constitution of India" says, "similarly where a law passed by the Legislature could be retrospective in operation there is nothing to bar an Ordinance on the same subject from the retrospective. Hence an Ordinance can be given retrospective operation even from a date when the legislature was in session overriding a judicial decision".

Therefore, promulgation of an Ordinance with retrospective effect will not be against the Constitution. The clauses 3 and 4 of the Ordinance have reported to have diverted the vested rights of the labourers. But I think it is under the jurisdiction of the Court. I also think that the Parliament cannot play the role of a Court while enacting law. There is a distinct separation of jurisdiction of the both. Mr. Kaul in his book "Practice and Procedure", 1978 Edition in page 523 says "since an Ordinance has the force of law, validity of the Ordinance can not be decided by Ruling of the Speaker".

[Twelfth session of the Fifth Parliament, December 2, 1993]

Hon'ble Speaker: Hon'ble Members, I gave my decision on 22-2-94 on the notices of four adjournment motions by Mr. M. Nasim, Mr. Suranjit Sen Gupta, Mr. Tofail Ahmed and Mr. Azizur Rahman under Rule 62 of the Rules of Procedure. In their notices they have quoted the daily "Lal Sabuj" that "reports of corruption against the Ministers are coming to the Prime Minister everyday" and "the Anti-corruption Bureau has got the reports of corruption against 17 Ministers". They have asked for the Prime Minister's direction and wanted to discuss the matter adjourning the session of the Parliament.

Since the content of the notices was the same, the same reply was given to all that necessary clipping has not been enclosed with the notice. In this connection Mr. Kaul and Mr. Shakdher were quoted and the House was informed that all the relevant papers need to be submitted to the Speaker for approving the motion. Mr. Kaul on page 421 of his book "Practice and Procedure" stated "Press reports, unless admitted by the Government, can not be accepted as authoritative for the purpose of an adjournment motion". I told the MPs to hand over the papers to me by 23-2-94 but no documents were received by that date. Mr. Nasim submitted the clippings of the daily "Lal Sabuj" at 11.25 am. on 21-2-94 and I clearly explained to them that no adjournment motion can be accepted only on the basis of newspaper reports. Mr. Nasim repeatedly wanted to know my decision. Now I give my decision that since I have not received the necessary papers on the subject the notices have been rejected.

After that unlawful speeches were made from both the sides. Few Hon'ble Members from the Opposition wanted to have a discussion on the adjournment motion. From the Government side, Hon'ble State Minister Mr. Fazlur Rahman and a few other Members demanded a general discussion for one day or more on corruption instead of keeping the discussion confined to the adjournment motion. Some Opposition Members also supported that demand and asked to fix a date for such a discussion. At this state Hon'ble Minister Barrister Abdus Salam Talukder opposed such a discussion when the turn of the discussion changed from adjournment motion and both sides started to accuse each other of corruption.

However, the main question is how far it will be justified to fix up a date for discussion on corruption as demanded by few Hon'ble Members from both the Government and the Opposition. Earlier we have had general discussion in the Parliament on many issues and there must be a proposal for a general discussion under Rules 146 and 147. Subjects for such discussion have included Farakka problem, jute policy, poverty alleviation, labour problems etc. and the subjects should be definite and for a fixed period of time under Rule 62 or 146 and 147. The words definite and specific have been categorically mentioned in the Rules 63(E) and 148(1).

In the present case the aspect which is most noticeable is that no Hon'ble Member has made any specific or definite charges against any Member and accuse each other on charges of corruption in a free style. In such a situation many true, half true, false and baseless accusations will come up which might go beyond control. Therefore, we must take into consideration as to whether creation of such a situation will be desirable for the Hon'ble Members and whether the Speaker should give consent to the creation of such a situation.

On this issue I want to quote few authorities. Mr. Kaul and Mr. Shakdher say "A Member has to be careful while making an allegation. He has to satisfy himself that the source is reliable and the allegation is based on facts. In effect, he is required to make prima facie investigation into the matter before he writes to the Speaker or the Minister, and more so, before he speaks in the House. A notice relating to an allegation based on newspaper reports is not allowed unless the Member tabling it gives the Speaker substantial proof that the allegation has some factual basis. In the notice to the Speaker, a Member is required to give brief details about the allegation which he proposes to make against a persons or another Member, so that the Speaker could judge the matter beforehand. As already stated, unless advance notice is given to the Speaker and the Minister concerned, a Member is not permitted to make allegations in the House. Where allegations are made without fulfilling this requirement, an objection to that effect can be taken by any Member in the House and the Chair in such a case may uphold the objection and forbid the Member from proceeding further in the matter. The Chair may also suo motu object to the allegations being made, where these are made without following the prescribed procedure. In appropriate cases, the Member may be asked to withdraw them or the Chair may even order the expunction of the allegations made by a Member against another Member or a Minister. If the latter denies those allegations, the denial should normally be accepted by the Member who made the allegations unless he is sure about the correctness of the charges made and is prepared to take full responsibility for the same. Where both, the Member who made the allegations and the Member or the Minister against whom those allegations have been made, stick to their respective versions and are prepared for an inquiry being held by the Speaker, they may be asked to produce such evidence as may be in their possession in support of their statements. After examining the evidence and going into the facts of the case, the Speaker may inform the House of the result of his findings. If the Speaker comes to the conclusion that the allegation had not been substantiated as there is doubt about the genuineness of the documents, the Member may be informed accordingly."

In the present case the Hon'ble Minister and the Members of Treasury Bench do not know anything about the charges of corruption to be brought against them. I do not know any example of raising such an open accusation. Two Members of the Indian Lok Sabha, Mr. Jotirmoy Basu and Mr. Samar Guha, brought two no-confidence motions against Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi on November 21, 1973. The motion of Mr. Jotirmoy Bosu was as follows:

"That this House expresses its want of confidence in the Council of Ministers."

The reasons given were "Government’s wrong, anti-people, anti-democratic policies are resulting in high prices and Government's total failure to ensure supply of food and other essential commodities to people is causing starvation, deaths, severe hardship, growing unemployment, rampant corruption etc. etc."

Erskine May in his book, "Parliamentary Practice" (pages 138 to 140) made the comment "Before making a complaint against a Member it is the practice, as matter of Courtesy, to give him notice beforehand. If a Member who makes a complaint against another Member has failed or been unable to give the Member notice of his intention to do so, or if although the latter has been given notice he neglects to attend, the more regular course is to adjourn further consideration of the matter of the complaint to a future day and to order the Members whose conduct is impugned to attend the House in his place on that day. In some cases, however, a Member has been permitted to found a motion upon his complaint and the debate on this motion has been adjourned to a later day in order that the Member complaint of might be present to hear the charge. Sometimes the Member has been ordered to attend in his place on the day to which the debate has been adjourned. In several instances, where a Member has stated that he rose to complain of the conduct of the Member, the Speaker has suggested that as the Member concerned was not in his place, the making of the complaint should be deferred until the following sitting. Where the Member complained of is present when the complaint is made, or attends pursuant to the order of the House, it is the Rule that he should be heard in as exculpation as soon as the question on the motion founded upon the complaint is proposed from the Chair. If the complaint is founded upon a written paper or other document, the Member complained of should be heard as soon as the paper on which the complaint is founded has been delivered at the Table and read, and before the question founded upon the complaint is proposed from the Chair. The principle underlying this distinction is that the Member complained of is entitled to know the substance of the charge against him, and that, where the complaint is founded on a document, the Member knows to what points he is to direct his exculpation.''

In our country the special privilege of the Members of the Parliamentary Committees have not yet been defined as per Article 78(5) of the Constitution. But since we are all interested to follow the parliamentary democracy and strengthen our Parliament, our target should be the practices and procedures followed by other countries and we should take decisions on certain fields accordingly. We must take into consideration the possibilities of affecting the special privileges of the Hon'ble Members and the Parliament in the proposed discussion on corruption. In this respect, other Parliaments normally follow the following practices.

George Wigg, a Member of the House, complained on 24 March, 1964 of passages in a speech made by Quinton Hoss reflecting on the conduct of Members. The objectionable passage was: "No honest person since we came into power can accuse us of pursuing a reactionary or illiberal policy. Nevertheless our elbows have been jarred in almost every part of the world by individual Labour Members partnership of subversive activities. This is the Party which is now seeking power." The matter was referred to the Privileges Committee of the House for investigation and report. The Committee had on it some of the most prominent and experienced Parliamentarians like Sir Harold Wilson, former and future Prime Minster of the country, Selwyn Lloyd, a future Speaker of the House, Sir Kenneth Pickthorn, the Attorney General of the day, George Brown, a former and future Minister of the Labour Cabinet. The report of the Committee which was accepted by the House, without demur, marks a landmark in the history of parliamentary privilege in the United Kingdom.

Your Committee recognises that it is the duty of the House to deal with such reflections upon Members as they tend, or may tend, to undermine public respect for and confidence in the House itself as an institution. But they think that when the effect of particular imputations are under consideration, regard must be had as to the importance of preserving freedom of speech in matters of political controversy and also, in cases of ambiguity, to the intention of the Speaker. It seems to them particularly important that the law of Parliamentary Privilege should not, except in the clearest case, be invoked so as to inhibit or discourage the formation and free expression of opinion outside that House by Members equally with other citizens in relation to the conduct of the affairs of the nation. It has long been accepted that neither Houses of Parliament has any power to create new privileges. Your Committee and the House are not concerned with setting standards for political controversy or for the propriety, accuracy or taste of speeches made on public platforms outside Parliament. They are concerned only with the protection of the reputation, the character and the good name of the House itself. It is in that respect only and for that limited purpose that they are concerned with imputations against the conduct of individual Members".

Under the circumstances and also since we have already held undefined and out of context discussions on this subject for two days, I don't think there is further scope for discussion on unspecific charges of corruption.

[Thirteenth session of the Fifth Parliament, February 28, 1994]