Illegal decisions of different bodies promote filing of writ cases

Gulam Rabbani :
For the illegal decisions taken by the different administrative bodies, the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution for the citizens of the country are being violated in many ways. The constitution, however, also gives the aggrieved citizens the right to file a writ petition seeking direct redressal in the higher judiciary for those violations. As a result, the number of writs in the High Court Division of the Supreme Court is increasing on a regular basis.
Different ministries, departments and offices are the main respondents in these writs. As a result the government has to spend a huge amount of money every year to face these cases.
Legal experts say that due to the negligence of the concerned authorities and lack of proper planning, the government is losing thousands of crores of takas every year in these cases. They advocated for speedy disposal of these cases to protect the unwanted loss of the public money.
According to the Annual Report 2020 of the Supreme Court, the
pending number of the writ cases was 87,853 in 2019, which increased to 91,196 in 2020. A total of 17026 writ cases were filed in 2016. The number was 19563 in 2017 the number was 17234 in 2018, the number was 16415 in 2009 and it was 11930 in 2020.
These writ cases are being filed for different causes. Many are filing writs as they were deprived of pension money after the retirement from the government services. The cases are also being filed due to not getting promotion in due time in services. Even many are filing such writ petitions against the government for not getting the appointment after passing all the steps in the recruitment tests.
In addition, the number of writ cases in the High Court has also been increasing for different reasons, including seeking amendments to different laws and regulations, seeking compensation for the victims of accidents in government vehicles, and challenging the legality of appointment in different services.
Sources said the government has paid around Tk 4,000 crore as the claim of these cases in the last four years. It has paid Tk 1088 crore only in 2019 and Tk 1108 crore in 2020.
According to the solicitor wing of the Law Ministry, the cases in the Supreme Court are usually handled by law officials of the attorney general office. However, in addition to them, about 1,200 lawyers have also been appointed for dealing with the cases of different ministries, departments and offices.
The government has to pay the lawyers around Tk 800 crore per year for the cost of handling the cases and the fees. The government has paid about Tk 7,000 crore in the last ten years in this purpose, sources said.
Attorney General AM Amin Uddin said, “Writ petitions have been normally filed challenging the loopholes of different laws, sections of laws and rules which are contradictory to the Constitution. Government officials personally are not responsible for those loopholes.”
Supreme Court lawyer Manzill Murshid said many illegal decisions taken by the different government bodies promote the writ petitions.
The lawyer also said, “Many blame the court for not reducing case backlog. But if the concerned authorities don’t take the right decisions then the case backlog will not be reduced. It will increase as there is a lack of good governance in the different administrative bodies.”
Barrister Shanjid Siddique, a Supreme Court lawyer, said, “There has been an increase in writ cases in the High Court due to alleged breach of citizens’ fundamental rights by the administrative bodies. The Executive is vested with ample power and they have to exercise it in accordance with law and be respectful to the constitutional rights of citizens. When the executives act beyond their legal authority or arbitrarily, it can be challenged by filing of a writ by the aggrieved individual.”
The lawyer also said, “It is pertinent to mention that an increase in writ cases not only burdens the judiciary, but it requires the government to contest the cases by appointing lawyer leading to expenditure of public money.”