Case Law On Fundamental Rights Of Accused Persons In Bangladesh
1. Aruna Sen v. Government of Bangladesh (1975)
Facts:
Aruna Sen was detained under the Special Powers Act (SPA), 1974, which allowed preventive detention to maintain public order.
The detention order did not clearly specify the grounds for arrest, and the detenu claimed violation of constitutional rights under Articles 32 and 33.
Issues:
Whether preventive detention without proper grounds violated the constitutional rights of the accused.
Whether the detaining authority had acted within the law or mala fide.
Judgment:
The High Court Division held that detention orders must be based on genuine grounds, and mere satisfaction of the detaining authority is not enough.
The detenu must be informed of the grounds and allowed to make a representation.
Detention orders that are vague, indefinite, or for collateral purposes are unconstitutional.
Impact:
Reinforced the principle that constitutional protections apply even under preventive detention laws.
Established that arbitrary detention violates Article 32 (personal liberty) and Article 33 (rights of arrested persons).
2. Abdul Latif Mirza v. Government of Bangladesh (1979)
Facts:
Abdul Latif Mirza was detained under SPA for allegedly making anti-government speeches.
Detention lasted several years without trial.
Issues:
Whether preventive detention without proper judicial oversight violates fundamental rights.
The balance between national security measures and constitutional safeguards.
Judgment:
The Appellate Division emphasized that natural justice and constitutional rights cannot be suspended even under preventive detention laws.
The state must act lawfully and reasonably when detaining a person.
Prolonged detention without trial is incompatible with the Constitution.
Impact:
Strengthened judicial oversight over preventive detention.
Affirmed that fundamental rights of accused persons cannot be bypassed by legislation or executive power.
3. Case on Prolonged Detention of Under-Trial Prisoners (Bangladesh Supreme Court, 2005)
Facts:
Many under-trial prisoners were held in jail for years, far exceeding the maximum sentence for their alleged crimes.
Petitioners argued this violated Articles 31, 32, and 35(3) (right to speedy trial).
Issues:
Whether prolonged pre-trial detention violates constitutional rights.
The responsibility of the state to ensure timely trials.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that unreasonable delay in trials violates the right to personal liberty and fair trial.
The Court ordered authorities to ensure speedy trials and regularize remand procedures.
Impact:
Highlighted the constitutional duty of the state to prevent arbitrary or prolonged detention.
Strengthened under-trial prisoners’ rights and emphasized the speedy trial requirement under Article 35(3).
4. Right to Legal Representation Case (Bangladesh High Court, 2002)
Facts:
An accused person was denied access to a lawyer during trial.
The petitioner claimed this violated Article 33 and principles of natural justice.
Issues:
Does denial of legal counsel violate the constitutional rights of the accused?
Can a trial proceed if the accused is not adequately represented?
Judgment:
The High Court held that right to legal representation is fundamental.
Denial of a lawyer renders the trial unfair and is unconstitutional.
The accused must be given effective opportunity to consult and be defended by a lawyer.
Impact:
Established that access to counsel is essential for a fair trial.
Provided a constitutional basis to challenge convictions or proceedings where the accused was unrepresented.
5. Rights Against Self-Incrimination (Bangladesh Supreme Court, 2008)
Facts:
An accused was coerced into making a confession under police pressure.
The confession was later used against him in trial.
Issues:
Whether compelled confessions violate Article 35(4) (protection against self-incrimination).
Whether evidence obtained through coercion can be admitted in court.
Judgment:
The Court ruled that forced confessions are inadmissible.
The accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Violation of this right invalidates the confession and may affect the entire trial.
Impact:
Strengthened the protection of accused persons against coercive police practices.
Reinforced that due process and fair trial rights are paramount in criminal proceedings.
Summary of Key Rights Reinforced by These Cases:
| Right | Case Example |
|---|---|
| Protection of personal liberty | Aruna Sen v. Bangladesh |
| Judicial oversight in preventive detention | Abdul Latif Mirza v. Bangladesh |
| Speedy trial for under-trials | 2005 Supreme Court case on prolonged detention |
| Right to legal counsel | High Court 2002 case |
| Right against self-incrimination | Supreme Court 2008 case |
These cases collectively strengthen the constitutional protections for accused persons in Bangladesh, including rights to liberty, fair trial, legal representation, speedy trial, and protection against coercion.
RELATED Blog
comments