Backlog of cases grows
The backlog of cases is growing in the High Court as respondents to various writs and other petitions are reluctant to submit their replies to rules within the stipulated time.
Many cases are also pending with the Appellate Division, as the government is indifferent to filing regular leave-to-appeal petitions within the stipulated period set by the court after granting stays in its favour in various issues of public interest.
Lawyers said that stay orders granted by the High Court in response to various petitions have remained in force for years, hampering the proceedings of many issues related to the public interest.
This is because the parties that receive stay orders often appear reluctant to get the pending rule heard by the High Court.
They said that a similar situation also prevailed in the Appellate Division with regard to pending cases as the government showed little interest in ending the proceedings after obtaining stay orders against the High Court orders.
A total of 5,21,999 cases were pending with the High Court and 16,851 others were pending with the Appellate Division as of March 31, 2022, according to the latest available Supreme Court statistics.
The total number of pending cases in all the courts was 40, 21,783 on March 31, 2022.
The number of pending cases in all courts was 30, 32, 656 on December 31, 2018.
The number of pending cases with the High Court was 5,16,652 on December 31, 2018.
Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association’s chief executive director, Syeda Rizwana Hasan, said that a High Court ruling over the deaths of 124 people in a fire at Nimtoli on June 3, 2010, was still waiting to be heard as the government had yet to reply to it.
In the rule, issued on June 10, 2010, the HC asked 11 government agencies to explain in four weeks why they should not be directed to take action and adequate measures for preventing and fighting fire incidents in the city.
She also said that the High Court’s another rule seeking the government’s explanation over the non-payment of compensation and not rehabilitating the victims of the February 20, 2019, Churihatta fire incident was still pending for hearing as there had been no reply to the HC rule on the issue.
At least 70 people died and scores were injured in the fire.
The High Court, in the rule issued in February 2019, directed the government to explain in four weeks why its failure to relocate chemical warehouses from old Dhaka would not be declared illegal.
Rizwana said that rules regarding the Nimtali fire were not answered by the secretaries of the ministry of industries and the ministry of environment and climate change, the mayor of Dhaka South City, the chair of the Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha, and the director general of Fire Service and Civil Defence.
On July 28, 2019, a High Court bench, in a suo moto rule, directed the owners of authorised pasteurised milk companies to refrain from producing, distributing and selling their products after separate probes found them contaminated and adulterated with banned antibiotics and heavy metals.
The Appellate Division the next day stayed the HC’s directive to ban the 14 brands following an appeal filed by state-run Milk Vita. Supreme Court lawyer Md Tanvir said that the stay order was yet to be vacated.
He added that the fisheries and livestock ministry, the BSTI, and the milk companies were yet to respond to two High Court rules issued following his petition seeking a ban on the contaminated milk.
He said that there was no bar on hearing rules in the High Court as the Appellate Division only stayed the ban on the sales and marketing of the brands, not the rules.
On January 16, 2020, the special bench of Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed and Justice Md Iqbal Kabir dropped the matter from the list of cases for hearing.
Jurist Shahdeen Malik said that the ministries, who are made respondents in writ petitions, should submit their replies to the rules within a specific period set by the court, and the HC section concerned should place the replies on the HC bench for hearing.
‘The ministries cannot submit their replies to the rules even after four years, although they should do this within four weeks,’ Shahdeen said.
He said that the non-submission of the ministries’ replies to rules is one of the reasons for the backlog of cases at the High Court.
Shahdeen said that ministries depend on the solicitor wing of the law ministry to prepare their replies, but the number of solicitors is less than that of the ministries.
Shahdeen said that the general practice is that the solicitors would request the attorney general, additional attorneys general, and their deputies to prepare the replies on behalf of the ministries.
The government loses many cases because solicitors do not represent the cases properly, he added.
He suggested the appointment of permanent law officers for ministries to take care of government cases.
Senior lawyer Manzill Murshid, who moved many public interest litigation writ petitions, told New Age that there was no bar on starting the hearing of a rule within 30 days from the date of its issue if the opposite party fails to respond.
Lawyers concerned with the rule are required to fix the matter for hearing by the court, he added.
Manzill said that at least 50 writ petitions filed on environmental issues on behalf of Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh remained pending for hearing.
He said that there are few benches to hear matters of public importance, but they refuse to hear them, stating that the courts are occupied with hundreds of other matters.
Attorney general AM Amin Uddin said that submission of replies from the respondents was not mandatory.
‘The court can deliver a one-sided verdict if anyone fails to submit their replies to rules,’ he added.
The attorney general claimed that his office was capable of drafting replies on behalf of the ministries if instructed.
This article originally published in Dhaka based Newspaper New Age.