IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

   HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION NO. 7650 OF 2012 IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

-AND- IN THE MATTER OF: Z. I. Khan Panna

....... Petitioner.

-Versus-

Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Legislative Drafting Division, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka-1000 and others

......Respondents.

Dr. Shahdeen Malik, Advocate

.....For the petitioner.

Mr. Md. Motaher Hossain (Sazu), DAG with Ms. Purabi Rani Sharma, AAG and

Mr. A.B.M. Mahbub, AAG

….For the respondent no. 2.

Heard on 04.12.2014, 04.05.2015, 15.06.2015, 01.07.2015, 12.08.2015 and 31.08.2015.

                   Judgment on 13.09.2015.

Present:

Mr. Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury

-And-

Mr. Justice Md. Ashraful Kamal

MOYEENUL ISLAM CHOWDHURY, J: 

On an application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh filed by the petitioner, a Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned ®k±b A¢ik¡e c¡uj¤¢š² BCe, 2003 (2003 p−el 1 ew BCe) (Annexure-‘A’ to the Writ Petition) should not

be declared to be repugnant to and inconsistent with the Constitution and why a direction should not be issued upon the respondents to create a fund of Tk. 100 (one hundred) crore and to keep the same earmarked for payment of compensation to the victims of illegal and unlawful actions taken during the period indemnified by the impugned Act and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

The case of the petitioner, as set out in the Writ Petition, in short, is as follows:

The petitioner is an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. Over

the years, he has tried his best to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and

the fundamental rights of the citizens of the country. Anyway, ®k±b A¢ik¡e c¡uj¤¢š² AdÉ¡−cn, 2003 was promulgated on 9th January, 2003 providing for the indemnity

of all disciplined forces and Government officials for the detention, arrest, search, interrogation and such other actions taken against the citizens between

16th October, 2002 and 9th January, 2003 pursuant to the order dated 16th October, 2002 and other subsequent orders of the Government. Thereafter ®k±b A¢ik¡e c¡uj¤¢š² BCe, 2003 (2003 p−el 1 ew BCe) (h reinafter referred to as the Act

No. 1 of 2003) was enacted by the House of the Nation and was published in Bangladesh Gazette, Extra-ordinary on 24th February, 2003 to provide for the indemnity of the members of all disciplined forces and public functionaries to

that effect. Section 3(kha) of the Act No. 1 of 2003 purports to stipulate that no legal proceeding shall lie in any Court due to any harm to one’s life, liberty or property or any mental or physical damage stemming therefrom if such injury was caused by the actions taken by the disciplined forces pursuant to the order dated 16th October, 2002 and other subsequent orders made by the Government. Section 3(kha) further purports to stipulate that any proceeding initiated in any Court relating to the actions taken pursuant to the above-mentioned orders within the said period of time and any decision rendered by such Court shall be considered void, ineffective and abated. However, on the plea of maintenance of the law and order situation of the country, curbing terrorism and recovering illegal arms from miscreants etc., the Government issued an order on 16th October, 2002 to the disciplined forces to conduct drives under the name and style ‘Operation Clean Heart’ all over the country as and when required and accordingly they conducted drives till 9th January, 2003. During the drives of the joint forces during the period under reference, there were rampant allegations of violations of human rights and unlawful acts. Horrendous crimes such as harassment of people, illegal arrests, trespass, illegal seizure of property, torture, mutilation and killing of a considerable number of people in custody were committed. During that period, there were reports appearing almost every day in the national daily newspapers and electronic media about the widespread human rights violations and heinous crimes committed by the joint forces. The Daily Prothom Alo, the Daily Star and other daily newspapers carried the reports of the victimization of the people and the brutalities perpetrated upon them and custodial deaths. As per those paper-clippings, during 85(eighty-five) days of the drives conducted by the joint forces, at least 43(forty-three) people were killed in their custody. The losses suffered by the victims of the so-called ‘Operation Clean Heart’ could be redressed both under civil and criminal jurisdictions of the Courts of law. In cases of known, admitted and recognized

failures of the State, funds were set apart and a Special Commission or Body or Authority was constituted to disburse funds as compensation among the victims of wrongful and unjustified State actions in various jurisdictions. Against this backdrop, the victims of torture and in case of custodial deaths, the dependants/family members of the deceased are entitled to be compensated under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. As the Act No. 1 of 2003 runs counter to the concept of the rule of law and the fundamental rights of the people as guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution, the same is liable to be struck down as being ultra vires the Constitution.

The respondent no. 2 has contested the Rule by filing an Affidavit-in- Opposition. His case, as set out in the Affidavit-in-Opposition, in short, runs as under:

During the period of the ‘Operation Clean Heart’, nobody did lodge or file any specific case against any personnel of the joint forces, nor did anybody claim any compensation from the Government on account of their unlawful actions. So the Government is not bound to pay or provide compensation to the victims of brutalities or to the dependants of the deceased in case of custodial deaths. Criminal liability is a personal liability and in this perspective, it can not be imposed upon the Government. As such, the Rule is liable to be discharged.

At the outset, Dr. Shahdeen Malik, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that Article 46 of the Constitution can not be invoked in support of the Act No. 1 of 2003 in that there is no scope for providing any blanket indemnity to the perpetrators of crimes and that is why, the Act No. 1 of 2003 can not stand the test of constitutionality.

 Dr. Shahdeen Malik further submits that the Bangladesh National Liberation Struggle (Indemnity) Order, 1973 (P. O. No. 16 of 1973) was promulgated in order to give indemnity to the persons in the service of the Republic and to other persons for or on account of or in respect of any acts done by them during the period from 1st day of March, 1971 to 16th day of December, 1971 in connection with the struggle for national liberation or for maintenance or restoration of order up to 28th day of February, 1972 and the Act No. 1 of 2003 inherently and conceptually does not stand comparison with the P. O. No. 16 of 1973 by any yardstick and by that reason, the Act No. 1 of 2003 is repugnant to the rule of law which is one of the basic structures of the Constitution.

Dr. Shahdeen Malik also submits that as per Article 65 of the Constitution, there shall be a Parliament for Bangladesh (to be known as the House of the Nation) in which, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, shall be vested the legislative powers of the Republic and the power of the Parliament to enact laws has been circumscribed by the provisions of this Constitution and this being the position, the Parliament can not enact any law in derogation of the fundamental rights as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution and since the Act No. 1 of 2003 is repugnant to and inconsistent with the rule of law and the fundamental rights of the citizenry, the same is not a valid piece of legislation.

Dr. Shahdeen Malik further submits that as per Article 3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and Article 5 thereof contemplates that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and Article 9 provides that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile and Article 10 envisages that everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him and these Articles of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations have been enshrined in Part III of our Constitution and as Bangladesh is a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as Bangladesh is one of the members of the United Nations, Bangladesh is in duty bound to abide by the various provisions of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and what is of paramount importance is that in enacting the Act No. 1 of 2003, the House of the Nation can not by-pass or circumvent the fundamental rights of the people and as the Act No. 1 of 2003 runs counter to the fundamental rights of the people and the rule of law, the same should be declared ultra vires the Constitution.

Dr. Shahdeen Malik next refers to Articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976 and submits that as per Article 6(1), every human being has the inherent right to life and this right shall be protected by law and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life and Article 7 provides that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and as every human being has the inherent right to life, he can not be deprived of his life save in accordance with law and since custodial brutalities and deaths have no sanction of the Constitution, those have fallen foul of the same.

Dr. Shahdeen Malik also adverts to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1987 to which Bangladesh is a signatory and submits that according to Article 2(1), each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction and Article 2(3) postulates that an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Dr. Shahdeen Malik further refers to Articles 13 and 14 of the   Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1987 and submits that each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges that he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities and steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill- treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given (Article 13) and that each State party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation and in the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shall be entitled to compensation (Article

14).

Dr. Shahdeen Malik also submits that Article 31 of our Constitution mandates that to enjoy the protection of the law, and to be treated in accordance with law, and only in accordance with law, is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Bangladesh, and in particular no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law and that Article 32 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty save in accordance with law and as the victims of the ‘Operation Clean Heart’ were meted out brutalities and torture in the custody of the joint forces and as there were deaths in their custody too as evidenced by Annexure-‘B’ series to the Writ Petition, it leaves no room for doubt that those persons were subjected to violations of human rights by means of torture, intimidation, coercion and so on and so forth and also by means of custodial deaths and this being the panorama, the impugned Act No. 1 of 2003 can not be intra vires the Constitution.

Dr. Shahdeen Malik further submits that in our jurisdiction, no Compensation Jurisprudence has yet been developed; but in the Indian jurisdiction, victims of human rights violations were awarded proper compensation by the various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India in appropriate cases and the reparations given to the victims by way of monetary compensation would be in addition to the reliefs sought for under the civil and criminal laws of the land and the instant Writ Petition may be instrumental in evolving the Compensation Jurisprudence in Bangladesh as in India. In support of this submission, Dr. Shahdeen Malik has adverted to a catena of decisions of the Indian jurisdiction, namely, Radhakanta Majhi…Vs…State of Orissa, AIR 2014 Ori 206; Puspa Reang…Vs…The State of Tripura, AIR 2014 Tripura 49; R. Gandhi and others…Vs… Union of India (UOI) and another, AIR 1989 Mad 205; Vipin P. V…Vs…State of Kerala and others, AIR 2013 Ker 67 and Jaywant P. Sankpal…Vs…Suman Gholap and others, (2010) 11 SCC 208.  

Per contra, Mr. Md. Motaher Hossain (Sazu), learned Deputy Attorney- General appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2, submits that no case was ever lodged or filed by the victims or their family members against any personnel of the joint forces for perpetration of brutalities upon the victims and as such the Government is not bound to provide compensation to the victims or their family members, as the case may be.

 Mr. Md. Motaher Hossain (Sazu) further submits that criminal liability is a personal liability and if any member of the joint forces committed any crime during the ‘Operation Clean Heart’, in that event, the Government can not be saddled with the personal liability of that member of the joint forces.  

Mr. Md. Motaher Hossain (Sazu) also submits that the Writ Petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation and the submissions of Dr. Shahdeen Malik are virtually predicated upon the various decisions of several Indian High Courts and the Supreme Court of India with regard to payment of compensation to the victims in specific cases and as no specific case has been brought before this Court for awarding compensation under Article 102 of the Constitution, the Government is not legally bound to compensate the victims or their family members, as the case may be.

We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocate Dr. Shahdeen Malik and the counter-submissions of the learned Deputy Attorney-General Mr. Md. Motaher Hossain (Sazu) and perused the Writ Petition, Affidavit-in- Opposition and relevant Annexures annexed thereto.

It is a settled proposition of law that there is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of the impugned Act No. 1 of 2003. In that view of the matter, the onus is upon the petitioner to show that the Act No. 1 of 2003 is void and ultra vires the Constitution. We will see presently how far Dr. Shahdeen Malik has succeeded in discharging this onus to our satisfaction.

It is a truism that the Constitution is the “suprema lex” of the country. In other words, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In this connection, Article 7(2) of the Constitution may be mentioned. Article 7(2) mandates that this Constitution is, as the solemn expression of the will of the people, the supreme law of the Republic, and if any other law is inconsistent with this Constitution, that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. This Article has proclaimed the supremacy of the Constitution to bring home the point that no law, or any part thereof, can be valid if it is found to be inconsistent therewith.

Supremacy of the Constitution means that its mandates shall prevail under all circumstances. As it is the source of legitimacy of all actions, legislative, executive or judicial, no action shall be valid unless it is in conformity with the Constitution both in letter and spirit. If any action is actually inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, such action shall be void and can not under any circumstances be ratified by passing a declaratory law in Parliament. If a law is unconstitutional, it may be re-enacted removing the inconsistency with the Constitution or re-enacted after amendment of the Constitution. However, supremacy of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and as such even by an amendment of the Constitution, an action in derogation of the supremacy of the Constitution can not be declared to have been validly taken. Such an amendment is beyond the constituent power of Parliament and must be discarded as a fraud on the Constitution. 

According to the Constitution, there are 3(three) organs of the State, that is to say, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. All the 3(three) organs of the State are to function within the parameters set by the Constitution. The unique feature of the Judiciary is its power of judicial review. But this power of judicial review does not make the Judiciary superior to the other 2(two) organs of the State, namely, the Executive and the Legislature. As a matter of fact, the Judiciary is co-ordinate and co-equal with the other 2(two) organs of the State.

Ours is a written Constitution. It is axiomatic that judicial review is the soul of the Judiciary in a written Constitution. In a written Constitution, the power of the Parliament in enacting laws is always subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Our Parliament is not as sovereign as the British Parliament. In Great Britain, the Constitution is unwritten and the Parliament is supreme. It is often said that the British Parliament can do and undo anything except making a man woman and a woman a man. Such is the amplitude of the sovereignty or supremacy of the British Parliament. But on the other hand, our Constitution has delineated the limitations of the Parliament in enacting laws. What we are driving at boils down to this: our Parliament is sovereign in enacting laws, but that sovereignty is subject to the provisions of the Constitution. For example, our Parliament can not make any law contrary to the fundamental rights as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.

In the case of Raja Ram Pal …Vs….Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and others, (2007) 3 SCC 184, it was held by the Supreme Court of India:

“Parliament in India, unlike in England, is not

supreme. Rather it is the Constitution of India that is

supreme and Parliament will have to act within the

limitations imposed by the Constitution. The law in

England of exclusive cognizance of Parliament has no applicability in India which is governed and bound by

the Constitution. A Legislature created by a written Constitution must act within the ambit of its power as

defined by the Constitution and subject to the

limitations prescribed by the Constitution. Parliament,

like other organs of the State, is subject to the

provisions of the Constitution and is expected, nay,

bound to exercise its powers in consonance with the

provisions of the Constitution. Any act or action of

Parliament contrary to the constitutional limitations

will be void.”

The above view of the Indian Supreme Court, in my humble opinion, clearly holds good in our jurisdiction.

However, the provisions of Article 26 of our Constitution run as follows:

“26.(1) All existing laws inconsistent with the

provisions of this Part shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, become void on the commencement of

this Constitution.

(2) The State shall not make any law inconsistent with any provisions of this Part, and any law so made shall,

to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.”

The next relevant Article is Article 27 of the Constitution. According to Article 27, all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.

Sir Ivor Jennings in his “The Law and the Constitution” stated:

“Equality before the law means that among equals,

the law should be equal and should be equally

administered, that like should be treated alike”.  

In the case of Southern Rly Co. V. Greane, 216 U. S. 400, Day-J observed:

“Equal protection of the law means subjection to

equal laws, applying alike to all in the same

situation.”

Article 31 provides that to enjoy the protection of the law, and to be treated in accordance with law, and only in accordance with law, is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Bangladesh, and in particular no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law.

Article 32 mandates that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.

 Article 35(3) contemplates that every person accused of a criminal offence shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law. Again Article 35(5) provides that no person shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment.

What emerges from the above discussion is that no one is above law and everybody is subject to law. This is the essence of the rule of law in a constitutional dispensation like ours. In this respect, we are reminded of an oft- quoted legal dictum─ ‘Be you ever so high, the law is above you’.

Indisputably Bangladesh is a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976 and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1987. Apart from the provisions of our Constitution mentioned hereinbefore, as a State Party as well, Bangladesh is committed to translate into reality the provisions of those international instruments and to see that no one is subjected to torture, intimidation, coercion, degrading treatment, brutality or custodial death save in accordance with law.

The provisions of Section 3(ka) and (kha) of the Act No. 1 of 2003 are in the following terms:

“3(L) 16C A−ƒ¡hl, 2002 a¡¢lM qC−a 9C S¡e¤u¡l£, 2003 a¡¢lM L¡kÑ¢chp fkÑ¿¹ pj−ul j−dÉ ®c−nl nª´Mm¡ lr¡l fÐ−u¡S−e ®hp¡j¢lL fÐn¡pe−L pq¡ua¡ fÐc¡−el SeÉ plL¡l LaѪL 16C A−ƒ¡hl, 2002 a¡¢l−M fÐcš B−cn Hhw avflha£Ñ pj−u fÐcš pLm B−cn, Eš² B−cnpj§q h¡Ù¹h¡u−el SeÉ L«a k¡ha£u L¡kÑ Hhw Eš² B−cnpj§q

h−m J Ae¤p¡−l −k±b A¢ik¡−e ¢e−u¡¢Sa nª´Mm¡ h¡¢qe£l ®L¡e pcpÉ h¡

®k±b A¢ik¡−el AeÉ ®L¡e pcpÉ h¡ c¡¢uaÅfСç AeÉ ®L¡e hÉ¢š² LaѪL

Eš² pj−ul j−dÉ a¡q¡l c¡¢uaÅ ¢h−hQe¡u fÐcš B−cn, L«a BVL, ®NËga¡l, aõ¡n£ J ¢S‘¡p¡h¡cpq pLm fÐL¡l L¡kÑ J Nªq£a hÉhÙÛ¡, fÐQ¢ma BC−e J B−cnpj§−q k¡q¡C b¡L¥L e¡ ®Le, 16C A−ƒ¡hl, 2002 a¡¢lM fÐcš B−cn fÐc¡eL¡l£ Hhw Eš² B−cnh−m J Ae¤p¡−l

B−cn fÐc¡eL¡l£ Hhw L¡kÑ pÇf¡ceL¡l£, Hhw ®k±b A¢ik¡−e ¢e−u¡¢Sa nª´Mm¡ h¡¢qe£l pcpÉNZ−L a‹eÉ phÑfÐL¡l c¡uj¤š² Ll¡ qCm; (M) cg¡ (L) H E¢õ¢Ma 16C A−ƒ¡hl, 2002 a¡¢l−M fÐcš B−cn h¡ avflha£Ñ pj−u fÐcš ®L¡e B−cn h¡ L¡−kÑl à¡l¡ L¡q¡lJ fСZq¡¢e O¢V−m, L¡q¡lJ S¡e h¡ j¡−ml ®L¡e r¢a qC−m h¡ L¡q¡lJ ® e A¢dL¡l r¥æ qC−m h¡ ®Lq B¢bÑL, n¡l£¢lL h¡ j¡e¢pLi¡−h r¢aNËÙ¹

qC−m h¡ ®Lq AeÉ ®L¡ei¡−h pwr¥ì qC−m a‹eÉ pw¢nÔø pLm B−cn fÐc¡eL¡l£l ¢hl¦−Ü h¡ L¡kÑ ¢eh¡Ñq£l ¢hl¦−Ü h¡ Eš² cg¡u E¢õ¢Ma

®L¡e pcpÉ h¡ hÉ¢š² h¡ nª´Mm¡  h¡¢qe£l pcpÉN−Zl ¢hl¦−Ü h¡ a¡q¡¢cN−L B−cn fÐc¡eL¡l£l ¢hl¦−Ü h¡ Eš² h¡¢qe£l ®L¡e LjÑLaÑ¡l

¢hl¦−Ü h¡ ®k±b A¢ik¡−e ¢e−u¡¢Sa nª´Mm¡ h¡¢qe£l AeÉ ®L¡e pc−pÉl

¢hl¦−Ü h¡ plL¡l h¡ plL¡−ll ®L¡e pc−pÉl ¢hl¦−Ü h¡ plL¡−ll ®L¡e

LjÑLaÑ¡l ¢hl¦−Ü ®L¡e Bc¡m−a ®L¡e fÐL¡l ®cJu¡e£ h¡ ®g±Sc¡l£ ®j¡LŸj¡ h¡ L¡kÑd¡l¡ h¡ AeÉ ®L¡e fÐL¡l BCeNa L¡kÑd¡l¡ Q¢m−h e¡ h¡ avpÇf−LÑ ®L¡e Bc¡m−al ¢eLV ®L¡e A¢i−k¡N h¡ fÐnÀ E›¡fe Ll¡ k¡C−h e¡ Hhw Hac pÚ Çf−LÑ h¡ HC fÐL¡l ®L¡e ®j¡LŸj¡ h¡ L¡kÑd¡l¡ ®L¡e Bc¡m−a c¡−ul Ll¡ qC−m h¡ HC dl−el ®L¡e ®j¡LŸj¡u h¡ L¡kÑd¡l¡u h¡ fÐ−nÀl ¢i¢š−a ®L¡e l¡u, B−cn h¡ ¢pÜ¡¿¹ ®cJu¡ qC−m

a¡q¡ h¡¢am, AL¡kÑLl qC−h h¡ qCu¡−R h¢mu¡ NZÉ qC−hz”

 Because of the non-obstante clause embodied in Article 46 of the Constitution, Parliament may by law make provision for indemnifying any person in the service of the Republic or any other person in respect of any act done by him or in connection with the national liberation struggle or the maintenance or restoration of order in any area in Bangladesh or validate any sentence passed, punishment inflicted, forfeiture ordered, or other act done in any such area.

It conspicuously appears that there is no reference to Article 46 in the Preamble of the Act No. 1 of 2003. Be that as it may, we are at one with Dr. Shahdeen Malik that there can not be any blanket indemnity of the persons accused of perpetration of crimes on the victims in their custody in view of the clear and unequivocal language of Article 46. Precisely speaking, indemnity can be given to the persons concerned for the maintenance or restoration of order in any area meaning thereby in any specific area in Bangladesh as provided by Article 46 of the Constitution. In fact, there is no scope for wholesale indemnity of the members of the joint forces for the maintenance or restoration of order throughout the length and breadth of the country in terms of Article 46 of the Constitution. On this count, the impugned Act No. 1 of 2003 can not be upheld. This is one way of looking at the Act No. 1 of 2003.

The members of the joint forces, or for that matter, the law-enforcing personnel are not above the law of the land. We have already observed that no

one is above law and everybody is subject to law. Any sort of deliberate torture

on the victims in the custody of the joint forces or law-enforcing agencies is ex-

facie illegal, unconstitutional and condemnable. In that event, they have the right

to seek the protection of the law in any independent and impartial Court or Tribunal, as the case may be. Custodial death is the worst form of violation of

human rights. Even a hard-core criminal has the right to be tried in the competent Court of law for his alleged perpetration of crimes. He can not be physically annihilated or killed by the members of the joint forces for his alleged

crimes. The law-enforcing agencies or the joint forces can not take the law into

their own hands and by doing so, they have infringed the relevant provisions of

the Constitution as evidenced by Annexure-‘B’ series to the Writ Petition.

Incidentally a reference may be made to ¢ekÑ¡ae Hhw ®qg¡S−a jªa¥É (¢eh¡lZ) BCe, 2013 (2013 p−el 50 ew BCe). Section 12 of the Act No. 50 of 2013 is quoted

below verbatim:

“HC BC−el Ad£−e L«a ®L¡e Afl¡d k¤Ü¡hØq¡, k¤−Ül ýj¢L, A¡iÉ¿¹l£Z l¡S®~e¢aL A¢Øq¢an£ma¡ Abh¡ Sl¦l£ AhØq¡u; Abh¡

FdÄaÑe LjÑLaÑ¡ h¡ plL¡¢l La«Ñf−rl B−c−n Ll¡ qCu¡−R HCl¦f

AS¤q¡a ANËqZ−k¡NÉ qC−hz”

This provision, without any shadow of doubt, upholds the basic spirit of the rule

of law even under any exceptional circumstances.

It is true that criminal liability of a person is his personal liability. But

none the less, the State can not shy away from its responsibility for the illegal

and unconstitutional actions of the public functionaries. The State must be called

to account for the unlawful and unconstitutional State-actions during the ‘Operation Clean Heart’.

Needless to say, the Bangladesh National Liberation Struggle (Indemnity) Order, 1973 (P. O. No. 16 of 1973) is fundamentally, perspectively and notionally different from the Act No. 1 of 2003. So the alleged constitutionality of the Act No. 1 of 2003 can not be tested by the yardstick of the P. O. No. 16 of 1973.

As to the contention of Mr. Md. Motaher Hossain (Sazu) that no case was ever lodged or filed by the victims or their family members against any personnel of the joint forces for commission of brutalities upon the victims and as such the Government is not bound to provide compensation to the victims or their family members, as the case may be, we would like to observe that −k±b A¢ik¡e c¡uj¤¢š² AdÉ¡−cn, 2003 was promulgated on 9th January, 2003 providing for the indemnity of all disciplined forces and Government officials for the detention, arrest, search, interrogation and such other actions taken against the citizens between 16th October, 2002 and 9th January, 2003 pursuant to the order dated 16th October, 2002 and other subsequent orders of the Government. Afterwards the Act No. 1 of 2003 was enacted by the House of the Nation and was published in Bangladesh Gazette, Extra-ordinary on 24th February, 2003 to the above effect. In such a situation, there was no legal scope on the part of the victims or their family members to lodge or file any case against the delinquent members of the joint forces. So the contention of Mr. Md. Motaher Hossain (Sazu) stands negatived.

It transpires that under Section 3(ka) of the impugned Act No. 1 of 2003, all the orders made by the Government from 16th October, 2002 to 9th January, 2003; all acts and orders done or given by the joint forces within such period and all arrests, detentions, searches, seizures and interrogations and all other such acts done by the joint forces during that period have been given an absolute

and unqualified indemnity; but this type of indemnity to any person or force or personnel is totally unknown and foreign to the notion of the rule of law which is a basic feature of our Constitution and fundamental to the governance of Bangladesh. As such, Section 3(ka) of the impugned Act No. 1 of 2003 is repugnant to and inconsistent with the Constitution.

By way of according absolute and unqualified indemnity under Section 3(ka) of the impugned Act No. 1 of 2003, the members of the joint forces and all their actions during the period between 16th October, 2002 and 9th January, 2003 have been put above the law of the land, thereby creating a supra-law entity purportedly above and beyond the Constitution which itself destroys the very foundation of the rule of law and equality before law as enshrined and guaranteed in the Constitution.

By providing blanket indemnity under Section 3(ka) of the impugned Act No. 1 of 2003 to the members of the joint forces and all their actions during the period under reference, a clear discriminatory situation has been created amongst the citizenry which is violative of their fundamental rights as embodied and guaranteed in the Constitution.

As we see it, Section 3(kha) of the impugned Act No. 1 of 2003 imposes an absolute prohibition on the citizens of the country to seek any legal redress, whether civil or criminal, in any Court against any member of the joint forces involved in any kind of operation during the aforesaid period purporting to violate their legal and constitutional rights. Such an absolute prohibition is inconceivable, unjustifiable and barbaric and is destructive of the constitutional scheme of the rule of law and the fundamental right ‘to protection of law’ as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Section 3(kha) of the impugned Act No. 1 of 2003 provides that any decision or order on any matter filed in any Court relating to any State action taken during 16th October, 2002 to 9th January, 2003 shall be considered void and ineffective. This provision, it goes without saying, undermines and negates the scheme of separation of powers among the 3(three) organs of the State which is central to the independence of the Judiciary.

The actions of the joint forces during 16th October, 2002 to 9th January, 2003 as are manifestly clear from the newspaper-clippings (Annexure-‘B’ series to the Writ Petition) show the violations of fundamental rights of the citizens of the country guaranteed under the Constitution. But by the purported indemnity of those actions, the aggrieved citizens have been ‘en masse’ deprived of enforcing their fundamental rights as well as the right of seeking redress, whether civil or criminal, in the Courts across Bangladesh.

The idea of the supremacy of the Constitution is at the core of constitutional democracy and governance and the guarantee and protection of fundamental rights are the centre-piece of the Constitution. If any legislative action contravenes any provision of the Constitution or the fundamental rights guaranteed thereunder, then it can not be sustained by the touchstone of the Constitution.

From the discussions made above and regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the impugned Act No. 1 of 2003 is not a valid piece of legislation and it is liable to be declared void abinitio and ultra vires the Constitution.

It is explicitly clear from Annexure-‘B’ series to the Writ Petition that during the period from 16th October, 2002 to 9th January, 2003, hundreds of thousands of citizens suffered financial losses by being injured and maimed and

their properties being vandalized or ransacked. Furthermore, the families of those killed were deprived of the earnings of the deceased. As such, they were subjected to pain, suffering, anguish and other mental or psychological trauma for all of which those citizens have the right to compensation stemming from the violations of their fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 27, 31, 32, 35(3), 35(5) and 40 of the Constitution.

This is a Public Interest Litigation. No individual victim, or for that matter, any family member of the deceased has come up with the instant Writ Petition for compensation. In this regard, the learned Deputy Attorney-General Mr. Md. Motaher Hossain (Sazu), it seems, has made a valid submission.

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, a pertinent question arises: can the State be ordered to pay compensation to the victims of brutalities or torture in the custody of the joint forces and in case of custodial deaths, to the dependants/family members of the deceased?

In Radhakanta Majhi…Vs…State of Orissa, AIR 2014 Ori 206 relied on by Dr. Shahdeen Malik, it was spelt out in paragraph 9:

“9. Compensation in a writ proceeding can never be a

substitute for loss of life and normally is by way of

palliative and token in nature. This, by no means, as

has been held by the Apex Court in a catena of

decisions, is a bar to a person to pursue his other

remedies available in law. The amount of compensation is only on a public law remedy for

violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

In Puspa Reang…Vs…The State of Tripura, AIR 2014 Tripura 49 adverted to by Dr. Shahdeen Malik, it was held in paragraph 10:

“10. It is a clear case of unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to life and liberty. Thus this Court is

competent to invoke the jurisdiction in the public law

for penalizing the wrong-doer and fixing the liability

for the public wrong on the State which failed in the

discharge of its public duty to protect the fundamental

rights of its citizen. No law has authorized the police

to perpetrate any custodial torture. The law’s

abhorrence is no more funnelled in the international

covenant. On umpteen occasions, the Supreme Court

has held that the purpose of public law is not only to

civilize the public power but also to assure the citizens

that they live under a legal system which aims at

protecting their interests and preserving their rights.”

Ultimately in the facts and circumstances of that case, the High Court of Tripura directed the State Government to pay monetary compensation to the tune of Rupees 4(four) lac to the petitioner without prejudice to any other action like civil suit for damages which is lawfully available to the petitioner or to the heirs of the victim for the tortious acts committed by the functionaries of the State.

In R. Gandhi and others…Vs…Union of India (UOI) and another, AIR 1989 Mad 205, it was observed in paragraph 8:

“8. The scope and ambit of public interest litigations,

the rights of the citizens and the duties of the State

under the Constitution have been the subject-matter of

a series of recent enlightened judgments of the

Supreme Court. The learned Judges have pointed out

that it is not only the right but also the duty of the

Court, not only to enforce fundamental rights but also

to award compensation against the State for violation

of these rights. In other words, the power of the Court

is not only injunctive in ambit, that is preventing the infringement of a fundamental right; but it is also

remedial in scope and provides the relief against the

breach of the fundamental right already committed.”

In that case, finally a Writ of Mandamus was issued directing the State of Tamil Nadu to pay compensation to the victims of the Coimbatore riots strictly as per the report of the Collector of Coimbatore dated 11.02.1985 in the sum of Rupees 33,19,033 as assessed and recommended by the Collector.

In Rudul Sah…Vs…State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141, the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 32 seeking his release from detention in jail on the ground that his detention after his release by the Sessions Court on June 3, 1968 was illegal, and also seeking ancillary reliefs, viz., compensation for his illegal detention in jail for over 14 years, his medical treatment at Government expense and ex-gratia payment for his rehabilitation. The Supreme Court of India completely departed from the old doctrine of Crown immunity and observed as follows:

“Although Article 32 can not be used as a substitute

for the enforcement of rights and obligations which

can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary

processes of Courts, such as money claims, yet the

Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under this

Article can pass an order for the payment of money if

such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental

right. In these circumstances, the refusal of the

Supreme Court to pass an order of compensation in

favour of the petitioner will be doing mere lip-service

to his fundamental right to liberty which the State Government has so grossly violated. Article 21 will be

denuded of its significant content, if the power of the

Supreme Court is limited to passing orders of release

from illegal detention. The only effective method open

to the Judiciary to prevent violation of that right and to

secure due compliance with Article 21 is to mulct its

violators by the payment of monetary compensation.

The right to compensation is thus some palliative for

the unlawful acts of instrumentalities of the State.

Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by

the officers to the petitioner’s rights. It may have

recourse against these officers.”

In Nilabati Behra…Vs…State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746, the Indian Supreme Court considered the question whether the constitutional remedy of compensation for infringement of any fundamental right is distinct from and in addition to the remedy in private law for damages. The deceased aged 22 years was taken into police custody and on the next day, his dead body with multiple injuries was found on a railway track without being released from the custody. The State’s plea that the deceased had escaped from police custody by chewing off the rope with which he was tied and was run over by a train was not substantiated by the evidence of the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination and the police officers were found responsible for the death. In such facts and circumstances, the Indian Supreme Court held in that case:

“Award of compensation in a proceeding under Article

32 by the Supreme Court or under Article 226 by the

High Court is a remedy available in public law, based

on strict liability for contravention of fundamental

rights to which the principle of sovereign immunity

does not apply, even though it may be available as a

defence in private law in an action based on tort. A

claim in public law for compensation for contravention

of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the

protection of which is guaranteed in the Constitution,

is  an  acknowledged remedy  for enforcement  and

protection of such rights, and such a claim based on

strict liability made by resorting to a constitutional

remedy provided for the enforcement of a fundamental

right is distinct from, and in addition to, the remedy in

private law for damages for the tort resulting from the contravention of the fundamental right.”

In D. K. Basu…Vs…State of West Bengal, 1997 (1) SCC 416, the Supreme Court of India again considered the question of claim for damages in case of violation of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, while laying down certain principles to be followed in all cases of arrest and detention. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case, the Indian Supreme Court held:

“The claim in public law for compensation for unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental right to

life and liberty, the protection of which is guaranteed

under the Constitution, is a claim based on strict

liability and is in addition to the claim available in

private law for damages for tortious acts of the public

servants. Public law proceedings serve a different

purpose than the private law proceedings. Award of compensation for establishing infringement of the indefeasible rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law since

the purpose of public law is not only to civilize public

power but also to assure the citizens that they live

under a legal system wherein their rights and interests

shall be protected and preserved.”

In Chairman, Railway Board and others…Vs…Chandrima Das (Mrs) and others, 2000 (2) SCC 465, a writ petition was filed seeking compensation from Railway Authorities for a victim, a Bangladeshi national, by name Hanuffa Khatoon who was gangraped by the employees of Railway, when the lady had arrived at Howrah Railway Station with a view catching a train to Ajmeer; she was taken by the employees of Railway Board to Yathri Nivas. Room in the Yathri Nivas was booked by one of the employees against a railway card pass. She was raped there by 4 employees. Later she was taken out to a rented house by another employee and raped there. A practising lady Advocate of Calcutta High Court filed a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking compensation for the victim. Though it was allowed by the High Court, Railway Board preferred an appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court of India held as follows:

“Where public functions are involved and the matter

relates to violation of fundamental rights or the enforcement of public duties, the remedy would still

be available under the public law; notwithstanding that

a suit could be filed for damages under private law.

The public law remedies have also been extended to

the realm and the court can award compensation to the

petitioner who suffered personal injuries amounting to

tortious acts at the hands of the officers of the Government.”

In Jaywant P. Sankpal…Vs…Suman Gholap and others, (2010) 11 SCC 208 relied on by Dr. Shahdeen Malik, we find that the complainant’s son was illegally arrested and brutally assaulted by the police while in custody as a result of which the State Human Rights Commission ordered the State Government to pay Rupees 45,000 as compensation and ultimately that order was upheld by the Bombay High Court as well as by the Indian Supreme Court.

The propositions laid down in the above decisions speak volumes about the awarding of compensation to the victims of violations of human rights in the custody of the public functionaries under Article 32 or under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution by the Supreme Court of India or the High Court concerned, as the case may be.

By the way, the relevant extract of the lecture of Lord Denning captioned “Freedom Under The Law” delivered in 1949 is in the following terms:

“No one can suppose that the Executive will never be

guilty of the sins that are common to all of us. You

may be sure that they will sometimes do things which

they ought not to do; and will not do things that they

ought to do. But if and when wrongs are thereby

suffered by any of us, what is the remedy? Our

procedure for securing our personal freedom is

efficient, our procedure for preventing the abuse of

power is not, just as the pick and shovel are no longer

suitable for the winning of coal, so also the procedure

of mandamus, certiorari and actions on the case are not

suitable for the winning of freedom in the new age.

They must be replaced by new and up-to-date

machinery, by declarations, injunctions and actions for

negligence. This is not the task for Parliament. The

Courts  must do this.  Of  all  the  great  tasks that lie

ahead, this is the greatest. Properly exercised, the new

powers of the Executive lead to the welfare state; but

abused,  they  lead  to  a  totalitarian state.  None  such

must ever be allowed in this country.”

The life and liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that it can not be allowed to be interfered with except under the authority of law. It is a principle which has been recognized and applied in all civilized countries. The object of Article 32 of our  Constitution  (Article 21 of the  Indian Constitution) is to prevent encroachment on the personal liberty of citizens by the Executive save in accordance with law and in conformity with the provisions thereof and in accordance with the procedure established by law. The meaning and content of right to life and personal liberty have several facets and attributes and the Indian Supreme Court has time and again declared their scope and ambit in a good number of judicial pronouncements. Right to life and personal liberty is a basic human right and not even the State has the authority to violate this right.

It  is implicit that  a  person  must  be  free  from  fear  and threat to  life inasmuch as life under fear and threat of death will be no life at all. Right to life would include the right to live with human dignity. (Chameli Singh…Vs…State of U. P., AIR 1996 SC 1051). There is a great responsibility on the police to ensure that any citizen in their custody is not deprived of his right to life. Wrongdoer is answerable to the victim and the State. The State can not shirk its responsibility if the victim is deprived of his life except in accordance with law.

Protection of an individual from torture and abuse by the police and other law-enforcing agencies is a matter of deep concern in a free society. Custodial torture is a naked violation of human dignity which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity. Whenever human dignity is wounded, civilization takes a retrograde step. The flag of humanity must on each such occasion fly half-mast. The police are, no doubt, under a legal duty and have the legitimate right to arrest a criminal and to interrogate him during the investigation of an offence. But the law does not permit the use of third-degree methods or torture of any accused in their custody during interrogation and investigation in order to unravel the mystery of the offence. The end can not justify the means. The interrogation and investigation into a crime should be in true sense purposeful to make the investigation effective. By torturing a person and using third-degree methods, the police may accomplish some hidden agenda behind closed doors what the demands of our legal regime forbid. No society can permit it.

The Courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. A court of law can not be blind to stark realities. Mere punishment of the offender can not give much solace to the family of the victim. A civil action for damages is a long-drawn-out and cumbersome judicial process. So monetary compensation by way of redress is, therefore, useful and at times perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balm to the wounds.

In the light of the above deliberations and decisions, it is clear that though there is no express provision in the Constitution of India for grant of compensation to the victims by the State for the infringement of their right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, yet the Supreme Court of India has judicially evolved that such victims are entitled to get compensation under public law in addition to the remedies available under private law.

Speaking about Bangladesh jurisdiction, we have not come across any judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court that has awarded compensation to the victims by the State out of the State coffers for illegal and unconstitutional actions of the public functionaries as yet.

The Indian decisions adverted to above have a persuasive value. We find no reason whatsoever to disagree with the ‘ratios’ enunciated by different High Courts of India and the Indian Supreme Court with regard to awarding of compensation to the victims by the State on account of violations of human rights by the public functionaries. In substance, we are in respectful agreement with the Indian decisions that have evolved a Jurisprudence of Compensation for the benefit of the victims of torture or the dependants/family members of the deceased in case of custodial deaths under writ jurisdiction, apart from any claim for damages in any action for tort under private law.

In such a posture of things, we are led to hold that in a writ proceeding under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, adequate compensation can be awarded to the victims of human rights violations in the custody of the law-enforcing agencies/joint forces or to the dependants/family members of the deceased in case of custodial deaths by the High Court Division. The quantum of compensation to be assessed and awarded to the victims or to the dependants/family members of the deceased, as the case may be, will vary from case to case depending upon their facts and circumstances. On this issue, no hard and fast rule can be laid down.

Since this is a Public Interest Litigation and no affected individual or victim has personally invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division for awarding compensation under Article 102 of the Constitution, we refrain from passing any wholesale order of payment of compensation to the victims of brutalities or torture or to the dependants/family members of the deceased in case of custodial deaths by the State; but nevertheless, they will be entitled to call in aid the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division for reparations by way of pecuniary compensation to be paid to them by the State for the unlawful and unconstitutional State actions during the ‘Operation Clean Heart’.

From the foregoing deliberations and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that ®k±b A¢ik¡e c¡uj¤¢š² BCe, 2003 (2003 p−el 1 ew BCe) is void abinitio and ultra vires the Constitution. But we are not inclined to issue any direction upon the respondents to create a fund of Taka one hundred crore and to keep the same earmarked for the purpose of payment of compensation to the affected persons of the ‘Operation Clean Heart’ for the reasons assigned above.

Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute in modified form without any order as to costs. The affected persons/victims of brutalities or torture or the dependants/family members of the deceased in case of custodial deaths during the ‘Operation Clean Heart’ will be at liberty to file cases against the perpetrators of the crimes, that is to say, the concerned members of the joint forces/law-enforcing agencies both under civil and criminal laws of the land for justice. They may also invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution for compensation, if they are so advised, in addition to the reliefs sought for under prevalent civil as well as criminal laws of Bangladesh. Besides, the State may take necessary steps for enactment of a law like the Philippines Human Rights Victims’ Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013 so as to provide for reparation and recognition to the victims/affected persons of human rights violations during the ‘Operation Clean Heart’, if deemed fit and proper. 

MD. ASHRAFUL KAMAL, J: 

 j¡ee£u ®SÉù ¢hQ¡lf¢a jCe¤m Cpm¡j ®Q±d¤l£l ja¡j−al p¡−b HLja ®f¡oZ L¢lu¡ Bj¡l

¢eSü ¢LR¤ A¢ija HM¡−e pw−k¡Se L¢l−a¢Rz

−k−qa¥ j¡ee£u ®~SùÉ ¢hQ¡lf¢a jCe¤m Cpm¡j ®Q±d¤l£ Aœ −j¡LŸj¡l pw¢rç OVe¡ Hhw Eiu f−rl ¢h‘ BCeS£h£à−ul k¤¢š²aLÑ ¢hÙ¹¡¢lai¡−h B−m¡Qe¡ L¢lu¡−Re, ®pC−qa¥ B¢j f¤el¡u −pCph

HCM¡−e hZÑe¡ Ll¡ qC−a ¢hla b¡¢Lm¡jz 

fËb−jC ‘Af¡−lne ¢LÓeq¡VÑ’ e¡−j BCe nª´Mm¡ h¡¢qe£ e¡j¡−e¡l fl avL¡m£e pjuL¡l ¢LR¤ ¢Qœ

k¡ ¢h¢iæ fœ-f¢œL¡u ¢hÙ¹¡¢lai¡−h fËL¡¢na qCu¡¢Rm k¡q¡ clM¡Ù¹L l£ Aœ clM¡−Ù¹l p¢qa pwk¤š² L¢lu¡−Re −pCph qC−a L−uL¢V ¢e−jÀ Ae¤¢mMe Ll¡ qCmx -

fËbj B−m¡ A−ƒ¡hl 23, 2002

BJu¡j£ m£−Nl abÉ J N−hoZ¡ ®L−¾cÐ ®pe¡ aõ¡¢n −nM ®p¢mj J p¡−hl ®Q¡~d¤l£−L f¤¢mn ¢lj¡−ä H−e ¢S‘ ¡p¡h¡c

−pe¡pcpÉl¡ Na ®l¡hh¡l l¡−a Y¡L¡u BJu¡j£ m£N p¡wpc, k¤hm£N ®Qu¡ljÉ¡e

J p¡−hL j¿»£ ®nM gSm¤m L¢lj ®p¢mj Hhw ¢h−l¡d£cm£u ®eœ£l l¡S®~e¢aL

p¢Qh J p¡−hL Efj¿»£ p¡−hl ®q¡−pe ®Q±d¤l£−L ®NËç¡l L−l−Rz H c¤Se−LC Bc¡m−al j¡dÉ−j f¤¢mn ¢lj¡−ä H−e ¢S‘¡p¡h¡c Ll¡ q−µRz H c¤C ®ea¡−L ®NËç¡−ll  fl Na  ®p¡jh¡l  ¢h−L−m  ®pe¡pcpÉl¡  d¡ej¢äl Q¡l  eðl  ps−L

Ah¢ÙÛa BJu¡j£ m£−Nl abÉ J N−hoZ¡ ®L−¾cÐÊ (¢pBlBC) aõ¡n£ Q¡m¡uz

p¡−hl ®q¡−pe ®Q±d¤l£−L BV−Ll ¢hl¦−Ü a¡l Ù»£ ®lq¡e¡ ®Q¡~d¤l£ Na ®p¡jh¡l q¡q−L¡−VÑ ¢lV Ll−m Bc¡ma pj−ul ¢h−hQe¡u Af¢lfLÅ A¢i¢qa L−l Hl

öe¡¢e p¡j¢uLi¡−h ÙÛ¢Na L−lez BS h¤dh¡l H ¢lV B−hc−el öe¡e£ qu a−h

Bc¡ma a¡−L ®ke ¢ekÑ¡ae e¡ Ll¡ qu ®p hÉ¡f¡−l ®Mu¡m l¡M−a ®Xf¤¢V AÉ¡Ve£Ñ ®Se¡−lm−L ¢e−cÑn ¢c−u−Rez

®p¢mj J p¡−hl−L ®NËç¡−ll fË¢ah¡−cl BJu¡j£ m£N J k¤hm£−Nl E−cÉ¡−N Na ®p¡jh¡l J NaL¡m jwNmh¡l h‰hå¥ H¢i¢eEl cm£u L¡kÑ¡m−ul p¡j−e ¢h r¡i

¢j¢Rm J pj¡−hn quz pj¡−hn ®b−L BN¡j£L¡m hªqØf¢ah¡l Y¡L¡u AdÑ¢chp qla¡m Bqh¡e Ll¡ q−u−Rz

Na ®l¡hh¡l l¡a 11V¡l ¢c−L ¢Su¡ B¿¹SÑ¡¢aL ¢hj¡eh¾cl ®b−L ®pe¡pcpÉl¡

p¡−hl ®q¡−pe ®Q±d¤l£−L BVL L−lz H pju ¢a¢e ¢Q¢Lvp¡d£e Ap¤ÙÛ ¢fa¡−L ®cM−a pÙ»£L mäe k¡¢µR−mez HLC l¡a 3V¡u ®pe¡pcpÉl¡ ömn¡−el h¡p ®b−L ®nM ®p¢mj−L BVL L−lz ®nM ®p¢m−jl JC l¡−aC ®c−nl h¡C l k¡Ju¡l

Lb¡ ¢Rm h−m f¤¢mn S¡¢e−u−Rz ®NËç¡−ll fl fËb−j p¡−hl ®q¡−pe ®Q±d¤l£−L B¢jÑ ®ØV¢Xu¡−j Hhw ®nM ®p¢mj−L LÉ¡¾V−j−¾V ¢e−u ¢S‘¡p¡h¡c Ll¡ quz ®p¡jh¡l ¢h−L−m ®nM ®p¢mj−L …mn¡e b¡e¡u Hhw p¡−hl ®Q±d¤l£−L lje¡ b¡e¡u qÙ¹¡¿¹l Ll¡ quz f¤¢mn c¤Se−LC 54 d¡l¡u BVL L−l Bc¡m−a ®fn L−l Hhw

¢lj¡−ä B−ez f¤¢m−nl 10 ¢c−el ¢lj¡−¿¹l B−hc−el öe¡e£ ®n−o fªbL Bc¡ma

®nM ®p¢mj−L ¢ae ¢c−el Hhw p¡−hl ®Q±d¤l£−L c¤C ¢c−el ¢j¡ä j”¤l L−lez

−nM ®p¢mj Hhw p¡−hl ®q¡−pe ®Q±d¤l£l ¢hl¦−Ü l¡øÊ¢h−l¡d£ p¿»¡p£ LjÑL −äl f¢lLÒfe¡ Ll¡l A¢i−k¡N Be¡ q−u−Rz ¢lj¡ä B−hc−e f¤¢mn E−õM L−l−R, Y¡L¡pq p¡l¡ ®c−nl p¿»¡p£−cl pw−N a¡−cl pÇfªš²a¡ l−u−Rz p¿»¡p£ LjÑL¡−äl j¡dÉ−j a¡l¡ Qœ²¡¿¹j§mLi¡−h l¡S®~e¢aL ü¡bÑ q¡¢p−ml SeÉ e e¡e osk−¿» ¢mçz       HC c¤C ®ea¡−L ®Nç¡−ll fl ®pe¡pcpÉl¡ Na ®p¡jh¡l ¢h−L−m d¡ej¢ä−a

BJu¡j£ m£−Nl abÉ J N−hoe¡ −L−¾cÊ (¢pBlBC) A¢ik¡e Q¡m¡uz A¢ik¡eL¡−m a¡l¡ ®L−¾cÐl L¢ÇfEV¡l, g¡Cmfœ, hCfœ, N−ioe¡l L¡NSfœ

aReR L−lz Hhw ¢LR¤ L¡NSfœ ¢e−u ®N−R h−m S¡e¡ ®N−Rz NaL¡m j‰mh¡l ¢pBlBCl fËd¡e Ef−cø¡ Bh¤m j¡m Bë¤m ®j¡¢qa ®pe¡ pcpÉ−cl à¡l¡ fË¢aù¡e¢V ®b−L abÉ J V¡L¡ Së Hhw A¢gp ¢pmN¡m¡ Ll¡l ¢ho−u d¡ej¢ä

b¡e¡u p¡d¡le X¡ul£ L−lez H−a hm¡ qu ¢pBlBC ®a pwl¢ra e¡e¡ bÉ

pð¢ma 300 ¢V g¡Cm Hhw eNc 28, 500/- V¡L¡ ®pe¡ pcpÉl¡ ¢e−u k¡uz

HR¡s¡ a¡l¡ 13 ¢V L¢ÇfEV¡−ll j¡l¡aÈL r¢a p¡de L−lz ®l¡hl¡l 3V¡l ¢c−L

®pe¡ pcpÉl¡ a¡l h¡p¡u aõ¡¢n Q¡m¡u Hhw ®NËga¡l L−lz ¢a¢e −pe¡ pcpÉ−cl

L¡−R ®NËga¡l£ f−l¡u¡e¡ ®cM−a Q¡C−m a¡l¡ a¡ ®cM¡−a hÉbÑ qez ¢a¢e h−me,

HLSe pwpc pcpÉ ¢q−p−h ®L¡e p¤¢e¢cÑø A¢i−k¡N R¡s¡ a¡−L − Ëga¡−ll ®L¡e HM¢au¡l ®eCz

f¤¢mn ®nM ®p¢mj−L 10 ¢c−el ¢lj¡−äl B−hce S¡e¡−m Bc¡ma ¢ae ¢c−el ¢lj¡ä j”¤l L−lez H pju ®nM ®p¢m−jl BCeS£¢hl¡ q¡¢L−jl B−c−nl ¢hl¦−Ü Bf£m Ll−a q¡C−L¡−VÑ k¡−he E−õM L−l B−cn¢V ÙÛ¢Na l¡M¡l B−hce S¡e¡ez Bc¡ma a¡−cl HC B−hce¢V e¡j”¤l L−lz

fË¡u HLC pj−u lje¡ b¡e¡ f¤¢mn p¡−hl ®q¡−pe ®Q±d¤l£−L jq¡eNl q¡¢Lj j¡j¤e

Bm l¢n−cl Bc¡m−a q¡¢Sl L−lz H pju Ae¤j¢a ¢e−u p¡−hl ®q¡−pe Q±d¤l£ Bc¡ma−L h−me, Ap¤ÙÛ ¢fa¡−L ¢a¢e ®cM−a mäe k¡¢µR−me ¢hj¡e h¾c−l hÉ¡−NS ®QL Ll¡l HL fkÑ¡−u ®pe¡ pcpÉl¡ a¡−L BVL L−lz ¢a¢e Hpju ®pe¡ pcpÉ−cl h−m¢R−me S¡e¡j−a ®pe¡ h¡¢qe£−L jÉ¡¢S−ø¢p rja¡ ®cJu¡ qu¢ez H AhÙÛ¡u ®pe¡ pcpÉl¡ a¡−L ®NËga¡l Ll−a f¡−le e¡z ¢L¿º ®pe¡ pcpÉl¡ a¡−L S¡e¡e Ef−ll ¢e−cÑ−n a¡−L ®NËga¡l Ll¡ q−µRz ®pe¡ pcpÉl¡ a¡l L¡−R b¡L¡ ¢gÓjq£e HL¢V LÉ¡−jl¡ J hÉ¢š²Na hÉhq¡−ll mÉ¡fVf L¢ÇfV¡l Së L−lz

Na ®p¡jh¡l HC c¤C ®ea¡l ¢lj¡ä B−hc−el öe¡e£ Qm¡L¡−m Bc¡m−a p¡wpc Bp¡c¤‹¡j¡e e¤l Hhw ®nM −p¢mj J p¡−hl ®Q±d¤l£l BaÈ£u üSe BJu¡j£m£N

J Hl AwN pwNW−el L−uLn ®ea¡ LjÑ£ Ef¢ÙÛa ¢R−mez

H¢c−L p¡−hl ®q¡−pe ®Q±d¤l£−L BV−Ll ¢hl¦−Ü a¡l Ù»£ ®lq¡e¡ ®Q±d¤l£ Na ®p¡jh¡l q¡C−L¡−VÑ l£V Ll−m Bc¡ma pj−ul ¢h−hQe¡u Af¢lfLÅ ¢q−p−h A¢i¢qa L−lez Hl öe¡e£ p¡j¢uLi¡−h ÙÛ¢Na L−lez BS h¤dh¡l ¢hQ¡lf¢a Hj

H B¢SS J ¢hQ¡lf¢a jja¡S E¢Ÿe Bq−j−cl pjeÄ−u N¢Wa q¡C−L¡VÑ ®h−” l£V B−hce¢V öe¡e£ qC−hz

¢lV B−hc−el ¢h−l¡d£a¡ L−l A¢a¢lš² AÉ¡Ve£ ®Se¡−lm hÉ¡¢lØV¡l ¢gc¡ Hj L¡j¡m h−me, ®NËç¡−ll fl HMeJ 24 O¾V¡ f¡l qu¢ez a¡C pj−ul ¢h−hQe¡u B−hce¢V Af¢lfLÅz BV¡L¡−c−nl ®L¡e L¢fJ e¡Cz a¡C H B−hc−el öe¡e£ Qm−a f¡−l e¡z

B−hceL¡l£l f−r AÉ¡X−i¡−LV j¡qh¤−h Bmj h−me, p¡−hl ®Q±d¤l£ p¡d¡le BCenª´Mm¡ h¡¢qe£l q¡−a ee, ¢a¢e B−Re ¢h−no pwÙÛ¡l q¡−az ®pM¡−e a¡l

Jfl ¢ekÑ¡a−el Bnˆ¡ Ll¡ q−µRz

Sh¡−h Bc¡ma h−me, ¢h−no pwÙÛ¡l ®Q−u Bc¡m−al q¡a M¡−V¡ euz ¢L¿¹¤ Af¢lfLÅ B−hce öe¡e£ pñh euz

fËbj B−m¡

A−ƒ¡hl, 28, 2002

M¤me¡u ®pe¡ ®qg¡S−a Ap¤ÙÛ k¤hm£N ®ea¡l Y¡L¡u jªa¥É

M¤me¡ eNl£−a ®pe¡ ®qg¡S−a …l¦al Ap¤ÙÛ k¤hm£N ®ea¡ ¢WL¡c¡l j¡p¤j ¢hnÄ¡p(38) ¢Q¢Lvp¡d£e AhÙÛ¡u NaL¡m ®l¡h¡l c¤f¤−l Y¡L¡ ®j¢X−Lm L−mS q¡pf¡a¡−m j¡l¡ ®N−Rez Na 22 A−ƒ¡hl M¤me¡l ®L ®l¡−Xl ®l¡S j¡−LÑ−Vl h¡pihe ®b−L ®pe¡l¡ a¡−L (AØfø) ¢S‘¡p¡h¡−cl HL fkÑ¡−u ¢a¢e Ap¤ÙÛ q−u f−sez

j¡p¤−jl üSel¡ S¡e¡e, j¡p¤j−L ®pe¡l¡ eNl£l ®nM l¡−pm ®ØV¢Xu¡−jl LÉ¡−Çf ¢e−u k¡uz fl¢ce j¡laÈL BqaAhÙÛ¡u f¤¢m−nl j¡dÉ−j a¡−cl L¡−R qÙ¹¡¿¹l Ll¡ q−m a¡−L M¤me¡ ®j¢X−Lm L−mS q¡pf¡a¡−m ¢e−u i¢aÑ Ll¡ quz AhÙÛ¡l Ahe¢a qJu¡u ®pM¡e ®b−L Na 25 A−ƒ¡hl Y¡L¡ ®j¢X−Lm L−mS q¡pf¡a¡−ml p¡SÑ¡¢l ¢hi¡−Nl BV eðl Ju¡−XÑ ÙÛ¡e¡¿¹l Ll¡ quz ®pM¡−e NaL¡m c¤f¤l ®csV¡l ¢c−L ¢a¢e j¡l¡ k¡ez

j¡p¤−jl i¡¢h BeS¤j¡e Bl¡ ®hNj A¢i−k¡N L−l−Re, h¡p¡ ®b−L ®pe¡l¡ a¡−L d−l ¢e−u −hdsL ®fV¡uz H−a a¡l c¤C f¡ ®ba−m k¡kz (AØfø) ¢a¢e S¡e¡e j¡p¤j M¤me¡ eNl£l k¤hm£−Nl pi¡f¢az a¡l ¢fa¡l e¡j Bh¤m q¡n¡j ¢hnÄ¡pz Q¡l i¡C HL ®h¡−el j−dÉ ¢a¢e ¢àa£uz

j¡p¤j BJu¡j£ m£N p¡wpc ®nM¡ ®qm¡mE¢Ÿ−el j¡j¡−a¡ i¡Cz ®nM ®qm¡m BJu¡j£ m£−Nl pi¡−eœ£ J pwp−cl ¢h−l¡d£cm£u ®eœ£ ®nM q¡¢pe¡l Q¡Q¡−a i¡Cz

BS ®p¡jh¡l Y¡L¡ ®j¢X−Lm j−NÑ j¡p¤−jl m¡−nl p¤laq¡m ¢l−f¡VÑ ®~a¢l qJu¡l fl jue¡ac¿¹ pÇfæ q−hz

Bj¡−cl M¤me¡ A¢gp S¡e¡u, j¡p¤−jl jªa¨É Mhl R¢s−u fs−m NaL¡m på¡u BJu¡j£m£N, k¤hm£N J R¡œm£N M¤me¡ eNl£−a ¢h−r¡i ¢j¢Rm ®hl L−lz H−a BJu¡j£ m£−Nl A‰pwNW−el Lj£Ñ−cl j¡−T ®n¡−Ll R¡u¡ ®e−j B−pz   

The Daily Star October 28, 2002

Sheikh Helal’s cousin dies following interrogation.  Army recovers pistols from former justice’s house

Masum Biswas, a Jubo League leader and counsin of Awami League lawmaker Sheikh Helal Uddin, who was picked up by the army for interrogation in Khulna died at the Dhaka Medical College Hospital (DMCH) yesterday.

The 38 year old was admitted to the hospital on Friday morning after being rushed in from Khulna in critical condition.

The morning before the army left him at the Khulna Medical College Hospital after Masum had fallen sick during interrogation at the Mir Nasir Stadium army camp. He was picked up from his second floor residence at Hiraj Market on the Clay Road in the early hours of Tuesday.

`It was the tenth death related to army interrogation in eleven days since the countrywide crackdown on criminals began on October 17.

Also yesterday, the army recovered there pistols and 30 rounds of bullet from the Humayun Road residence of former justice Mahfuzur Rahman in the city’s Mohammadpur’s area. Two people including justice Rahman’s brother-in- law Jafrul Hasan penny a local BNP leader were arrested in this connection.

Our Khulna rorrespondent said accoring to Ashish Kumar Kundu caretaker of the building Masum ......

Sheikh Helal’s cousin

lived in an army team went to Masum’s house at around 1:00 am and knocked on the door. As Masum opened the door he was asked about his profession and his political background. Another employee, Ekhlas, told The Daily Star that the army team tied and blindfolded Masum and asked him to hand over illegal fire arms.

When he said he was not in possession of any weapon, the troops started beating him. They also searched the house.

At one stage, Masum said there was a licensed firearm in his brother Shawkat Biswas residence, which was a couple of minutes walk away. The troops then took him to his brother’s house. As Shawkat was not home, the army team asked his wife Anjuman Ara Biswas whether there was any firearm in the house.

When she said no they said they would contine to beat her brother in law untill the firearm was handed over to them. Later, Masum was taken to the army camp at the Sheikh Nasir Stadium.

Next morning, Anjuman Ara handed over a licensed gun to the army, Rommef Biswas, Masum’s younger brother told the Daily Star. However, Masum was not released.

On thursday morning the 38 year old Jubo League leader fell sick and was left at the KMCH premises unattended. Next morning as his condition deteriorated his family took him to the DMCH where he died yesterday.

Masum’s body was sent to the DMCH morgue for autopsy. Several photoournalists who went the hospital to take his photograph said the lower part of Masum’s body bore marks of severe torture and was damaged.

Masum was not even implicated in any case anywhere in the country his mother told our khulna .........recovery of firearms in Chittagong due to what army sources called change in tactices. In Mymensingh three people Abul Kalam Azad, Jogindra Chandra Hrishi and Barun Hrishi were arrested in the early house of yesterday.

In Madaripur two leaders of the Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal (JCD) Shentu Khan and Mizan Sikder were arrested. Seventy-two criminals were hauled up during a joint drive in the southwestern districts of Barisal, Bhola, Jhalakathi, Patuakhali, Barguna and Shariatpur.

Of them 14 each were arrested from Barisal and Bhola, three from Jhalakathi nine from Patuakhali 11 from Barguna, nine from Shariatpur and 12 from Madaripur . In Sylhet 13 people including an identified criminal were arrested. In Gaibandha 16 people were hauled up in the last two days. Also arrested was a Jubo Dal leader from Bogra.

So far, the army has arrested 2,928 people including 1,027 listged criminals and seized 302 firearms alongwith 7,456 rounds of ammunition since the drive began on October 17.

Aaxfl  avL¡m£e l¡øÊf¢a LaѪL ®k±b A¢ik¡e c¡uj¤¢š² AdÉ¡−cn, 2003 S l£l flha£Ñ pj−u

fœ- f¢œL¡u ®kph ¢l−f¡VÑ fËL¡¢na qCu¡¢Rm k¡q¡ clM¡Ù¹L¡l£ Aœ clM¡−Ù¹l p¢qa pwk¤¢š² L¢lu¡−Re ®pCph qC−a L−uL¢V ¢e−jÀ A¢hLm Ae¤¢m¢Me qCmx-

SeLã, a¡¢lMx S¡e¤u¡l£ 10.2003 Ah−n−o ¢LÓeq¡−VÑl Ce−Xj¢e¢V ®cu¡ z

−k±b A¢i k¡−e jªa¥É-¢ekÑ¡ae ¢e−u j¡jm¡ Ll¡ k¡−h e¡

AdÉ¡−cn S¡¢l

Bq−jc c£f¤

h¡wm¡−c−nl C¢aq¡−p H ¢e−u c¤ h¡l HC c¡uj¤¢š² (Ce−Xj¢eV) AdÉ¡−cn

S¡¢l Ll¡ q−m¡z fÐbjh¡l Ll¡ q−u¢Rm S¡¢al SeL h‰hå¥ qaÉ¡l fl a¡l M¤e£−cl ®l¡q¡C ®cu¡l SeÉz The Indemnity Ordinance, 1975 (L

of 1975,  k¡q¡ XLX of 1975  eð−l j¤¢âa ), Aaxfl Eš² Ordinance ¢hNa BJu¡j£ m£N plL¡−ll Bj−m AhnÉ pwp−c a¡ h¡¢am ¢L−l h‰hå¥l M¤e£−cl ¢hQ¡−ll fb E¾j¤š² L−l ®cu¡ quz The Indemnity (Repeal) Act, 1996 HMe Af¡−lne ¢LÓeq¡VÑ Hl 85 ¢c−el j¡b¡u HC A¢ik¡e Qm¡L¡−m jªa¥É J ¢ekÑ¡a−el ¢hQ¡−ll q¡a ®b−L pw¢nÔø−cl ®lq¡C ®cu¡l SeÉ ¢àa£u ®k Ce−Xj¢e¢V AdÉ¡−cn S¡ l Ll¡ q−m¡ a¡J QÉ¡−m”−k¡NÉ h−m BCeS£h£l¡ ja ¢c−u−Rez ®c−nl n£oÑÙÛ¡e£u BCeS£h£ X. L¡j¡m ®q¡−pe Na l¡−a ¢h¢h¢p−L h−m−Re, ®k ®LE Bc¡m−a HC AdÉ¡−cn QÉ¡−m” Ll−a f¡−lez  pw¢hd¡e ¢h−no‘ hÉ¡¢lØV¡l ®l¡LeE¢Ÿe j¡qj¤c HC Ce−Xj¢e¢V−L pw¢hd¡eh¢qi¨Ña h−m BMÉ¡¢ua L−l SeL¾W−L h−me, BCeNa ¢i¢š R¡s¡C ®pe¡h¡¢qe£ e¡j¡−e¡ q−u−R Hhw k¡−cl LjÑL¡−äl BCeNa ¢i¢šC ®eC a¡l¡ Ce−Xj¢e¢V ®f−a f¡−l e¡ z

AdÉ¡−c−n k¡ l−u−R

−k±b A¢ik¡e L«a k¡ha£u L¡kÑ¡¢cl SeÉ c¡uj¤¢š²z BCe nª´Mm¡ h¡¢qe£ J

a¡l pcpÉNZ pÇf¢LÑa pLm BCepq Bf¡aa hmha AeÉ ®L¡e BC−e

h¡ Bc¡m−a ®L¡e l¡−u k¡C b¡L¥L e¡ ®Le, AdÉ¡−c−n h¢ZÑa ¢hou fÐ−k¡SÉ

q−hz

−k±b A¢ik¡−e L«a k¡ha£u L¡kÑ¡¢cl SeÉ c¡uj¤¢š² pwœ²¡¿¹ AdÉ¡−c−nl

cg¡ (L) ®a hm¡ q−u−R 16 A−ƒ¡hl 2002 ®b−L 9 S¡e¤u¡l£ 2003 L¡kÑ¢chp fkÑ¿¹ pj−ul j−dÉ ®c−nl BCenª´Mm¡ lr¡l fÐ−u¡S−e ®hp¡j¢lL fÐn¡pe−L pq¡ua¡ fÐc¡−el SeÉ plL¡l La«ÑL 16 A−ƒ¡hl a¡¢l−M fÐcš B−cn Hhw avflhaÑ£ pj−u fÐcš pLm B−cn, Eš² B−cnpj¤q h¡Ù¹h¡u−el SeÉ L«a k¡ha£u L¡Ñk Hhw Eš² B−cnpj¤q h−m

J Ae¤p¡−l ®k±b A¢ik¡−e ¢e−u¡¢Sa nª´Mm¡ h¡¢qe£l ®L¡e pcpÉ h¡ ®k±b A¢ik¡−el AeÉ ®L¡e pcpÉ h¡ c¡¢uaÅfСç AeÉ ®L¡e hÉ¢š² La«ÑL Eš² pj−ul j−dÉ a¡q¡l c¡¢uaÅ ¢h−hQe¡u fÐcš B−cn,fÐ−u¡S−e ¢hQ¡l ¢hi¡N−L H hÉ¡¡f¡−l üax fÐ−Z¡¢ca q−u E−cÉ¡N ¢e−a ¢a¢e Ae¤−l¡d L−lez 

SeLã

11, S¡e¤u¡l£, 2003

Ce−Xj¢e¢V S¡¢l L−l plL¡l S¡¢al pw−N ®hCj¡¢e L−l−R, pw¢hd¡e lr¡u HL¡VÊ¡ ®q¡ez X. L¡j¡m

−k plL¡l pw¢hd¡e m‰e L−l pw¢hd¡e−L ¢e¢×œ²u L¡l ®Qø¡ L−l ®p plL¡l HL¢V ®hu¡ch plL¡lz ®hCj¡e plL¡l pw¢hd¡e m‰e L−l ®ke−aei¡−h HL¢V ®O¡oe¡ ¢c−u pw¢hd¡e−L i¥m¤¢ãa Ll¡l SeÉ ®Qø¡ Q¡m¡−e¡ q−µRz ¢a¢e ®cnh¡p£l fË¢a ®cn hy¡Q¡J, pw¢hd¡e h¡yQ¡J ®pÔ¡N¡e a¥−m, H ®pÔ¡N¡−el fa¡L¡a−m hªqšl ILÉ Ns¡l ®O¡oe¡ ®cez

¢a¢e h−me, pw¢hd¡e 46 J 27 Ae¤−µRc Aqlq m´Oe Qm−RCz 54 d¡l¡l e¡−j ®ki¡−h NZq¡−l ®NËga¡l Ll¡ q−µR, a¡ pw¢hd¡−e pjÈa L-e¡ ¢a¢e fËnÀ l¡−Mez H 54 d¡l¡l AffËQ¡l ¢a¢e A¢hm−ð h−ål SeÉ plL¡−ll fË¢a Bqh¡e S¡e¡ez pw¢hd¡e m´Oe q−m SeN−eZl S¡ej¡−ml ¢el¡fš¡ b¡L−h e¡ h−m E−õM L−lez haÑj¡e ®S¡V plL¡l BCenª´Mm¡ Eæ¢a Ll−h h−m rja¡u H−p ¢L Ll−R?  plL¡l nfb f¡me Ll¡l Lb¡ h−m

nfb i‰ Ll−Rz

SeLã      S¡e¤u¡l£-11, 2003

Ce−Xj¢e¢V AdÉ¡−cn pÇf−LÑ ¢h¢iæ jq−m r¨Ü fË¢a¢œ²u¡x

−k±b A¢ik¡e−L c¡uj¤š² L−l S¡¢l Ll¡ Ce−Xj¢e¢V AdÉ¡−cn ¢h−l¡d£cm

®a¡ h−VC BCeS£¢h jq−mJ ¢hl¦f fË¢a¢œ²u¡ J ¢ha−LÑl pª¢ø L l−Rz

ay¡l¡ h−m−Re, j¡e¤o M¤−el m¡C−p¾p ®cu¡l HC BCe piÉ pj¡−Sl Ef−k¡N£ eu Hhw a¡ M¡l¡f cªø¡¿¹ q−u b¡L−hz ®c−nl n£oÙ ÑÛ¡e£u BCeS£¢hl¡ h−m−Re, HC AdÉ¡−cn QÉ¡−m”®k¡NÉ Hhw Hl j¡dÉ−j ®k c¡uj¤¢š² ®cu¡l Lb¡ hm¡ q−u−R a¡ A¿¹a p¤fË£j−L¡−VÑl ®r−œ fË−k¡SÉ euz

g−m HC AdÉÉ−cn¢V p¤fË£j−L¡−VÑ QÉ¡−m−”l j¤−M fs−a f¡−l h−m Bi¡p f¡Ju¡ ®N−Rz

H¢c−L ®k±b A¢ik¡e Ce−Xj¢e¢V A¢XÑeÉ¡−¾pl L−W¡l pj¡−m¡Qe¡ L−l S¡a£u pwp−cl ¢h−l¡d£cm£u ®eœ£ ®nM q¡¢pe¡ h−m−Re, ®cn Q¡m¡ a hÉbÑ

qJu¡l fl ®pe¡h¡¢qe£−L ¢c−u ®k AfLjÑ Ll¡−e¡ q−u−R AdÉ¡−cn S¡¢ll

j¡dÉ−j a¡l c¡u ®b−L ®lq¡C f¡Ju¡ k¡−h e¡z HC AdÉ¡−cn−L pw¢hd¡e

f¢lf¢¿Û Hhw j¡eh¡¢dL¡−ll Qlj m´Oe h−m A¢ik¤š² L−l ¢a¢e h−me,

®k±b A¢ik¡−el e¡−j 50 Se−L qaÉ¡ Hhw fСu 4 q¡S¡l j¡e¤o−L ¢Ql¢c−el SeÉ f‰¥ L−l ®cu¡l c¡uc¡¢uaÅ fÐdej¿»£−LC ¢e−a q−hz HC AdÉ¡−cn pwp−c E›¡fe Ll¡ q−m BJu¡j£ m£N Hl ¢hl¦−Ü cm£u AhÙÛ¡e

®e−h h−mJ ¢a¢e E−õM L−lez h‰h‰¥l ü−cn fÐaÉ¡haÑe ¢ch−pl LjÑp§Q£−a ®k¡N ¢c−a Y¡L¡ ®b−L V¤¢‰f¡s¡ k¡Ju¡l f−b ®g¢l−a AhÙÛ¡eL¡−m ®nM q¡¢pe¡ p¡wh¡¢cL−cl Hph Lb¡ h−mez HR¡s¡ Y¡L¡u ¢h¢iæ l¡S¯e¢aL cm J p¡j¡¢SL, p¡wúª¢aL pwNWe ®k±b A¢ik¡e c¡uj¤¢š² AdÉ¡−c−nl L−W¡l pj¡−m¡Qe¡ L−l h−m−Re, HC AdÉ¡−cn pw¢hd¡e¢h−l¡d£, j¡e¤o qaÉ¡l m¡C−p¾pz

BCej¿»£ hÉ¡¢lØV¡l jJc¤c Bqjc AdÉ¡−cn¢V S¡¢ll ¢ce hq ªØf ah¡lC p¡wh¡¢cL−cl h−m−Re, pw¢hd¡−el 46 Ae¤−µRc Ae¤k¡u£ HC AcÉ¡−cn

S¡¢l Ll¡ q−u−Rz ¢L¿º JC Ae¤−µRc Ae¤k¡u£ H dl−el AdÉ¡−cn S¡¢l Ll¡

k¡u ¢Le¡ a¡ ¢e−u BCeS£h£−cl j−dÉ ¢h−l¡d£ J ¢haLÑ l−u−Rz a−h H¢V

®k QÉ¡−m”−k¡NÉ a¡ ¢e−u L¡lJ ¢àja ®eCz fÐh£e BCeS£h£, p¡−hL HÉ¡V¢eÑ ®Se¡−lm hÉ¡¢lØV¡l l¢gL¥m qL H dl−el Ce−Xj¢e¢V ®cu¡ R¡s¡ plL¡−ll ®L¡e Ef¡u ¢Rm e¡ h−m j¿¹hÉ Ll¡l flJ h−m−Re, H¢V Bc¡m−a QÉ¡−m” Ll¡ ®k−a f¡−l öœ²h¡l SeL−ãl p−‰ Bm¡fL¡−m ¢a¢e BlJ h−me, BCe L−l ®k±b A¢ik¡−el pLm LjÑL¡ä−L ¢hQ¡−ll

E−dÑ l¡M¡ q−mJ r¢af§le ®Q−u plL¡−ll ¢hl¦−Ü r¢aNËÙ¹−cl j¡jm¡ Ll¡l p¤−k¡N ph pjuC l−u−Rz

n£oÑÙÛ¡e£u BCeS£h£, pw¢hd¡e ¢h−no‘ hÉ¡¢lØV¡l ®l¡LeE¢Ÿe j qj¤c SeLã−L h−me, r¢aNËÙ¹l¡ öd¤ r¢af§le ®Q−u j¡jm¡C eu, a¡l¡ AdÉ¡−cn¢V QÉ¡−m” L−l p¤fУj−L¡−VÑ j¡jm¡ Ll−m a¡ nš² j¡jm¡ q−hz AdÉ¡−cn¢Vl a£hÐ pj¡−m¡Qe¡ L−l ¢a¢e h−me, Hl j¡dÉ−j c¤¢V ¢hou fÐL¡n ®fmz fÐbja, plL¡l ü£L¡l L−l ¢em ®k, ®k±b A¢ik¡−el BJa¡u ¢LR¤ Afl¡d pwO¢Va q−u−R, k¡ ¢e−u i¢hoÉa ®g±Sc¡l£ j¡jm¡

q−a f¡la, ¢àa£ua, HC AdÉ¡−c−nl j¡dÉ¡−j j¡e¤o M¤e Ll¡l m¡C−p¾p

®cu¡ q−m¡, k¡ M¤hC M¡l¡f Ec¡qlZ q−u b¡L−hz ¢a¢e BlJ h−me, pw¢hd¡e l¡øÊf¢a−L AdÉ¡−cn S¡¢l Ll¡l rja¡ ¢c−u−R ¢WLC, a−h HLC pw¢hd¡e pwr¥Ü L¡lJ B−hc−el f¢l−fË¢r−a p¤fË£j−L¡VÑ−L ®k ®L¡e AdÉ¡−cn h¡ BC−el ®~hda¡ ¢edÑ¡l−el HM¢au¡lJ ¢c−u−Rz ¢a¢e h−me,

HMe ®k AdÉ¡−cn S¡¢l Ll¡ q−u−R ®p¢Vpq ®L¡e AdÉ¡−cn h¡ BCeC p¤fË£j−L¡−VÑl HC HM¢au¡l−L MhÑ Ll−a f¡−l e¡z E−õMÉ −c−nl n£oÑ BCeS£¢h X. L¡j¡m ®q¡−pe C−a¡j−dÉC h−m−Re, ®k ®L¡E Q¡C−mC HC AdÉ¡−cn QÉ¡−m” Ll−a f¡−lez p¡−hL BCej¿»£, BJu¡j£ m£N ®ea¡ HÉ¡X−i¡−LV Bë¤m j¢ae Mpl¦ pjuC BJu¡j£ m£N pi¡−eœ£ h−m¢R−me, pw¢hd¡e J j¡eh¡¢dL¡l pj¤æa ®l−M H A¢ik¡e f¢lQ¡¢ma

q−m a¡ pjbÑe−k¡NÉz ¢L¿º h¡Ù¹−h ®cM¡ ®N−R ®pe¡h¡¢qe£−L ¢el−fri¡−h L¡S Ll−a ®cu¡ qu¢e, hlw cm£u ü¡−bÑ hÉhq¡−ll ®Qø¡ Ll¡ q−u−Rz ¢a¢e h−me, M¤e LMeJ ¢hQ¡−ll q¡a ®b−L c¡uj¤¢š² ®f−a f¡−l e¡ M¤−el m¡C−p¾p ¢c−u BCe fËZu−el rja¡J pw¢hd¡e L¡E−L ®cu¢ez ¢a¢e BlJ h−me, ®pe¡h¡¢qe£ S¡a£u pÇfc a¡−cl ¢hl¦−Ü Bj¡−cl ®L¡e A¢i−k¡N ®eC Bj¡−cl A¢i−k¡N L¢afu Afl¡−dl ¢hl¦−Üz Hph Afl¡d−L j¡g e¡ L−l Efk¤š² ac−¿¹l j¡dÉ−j ¢hQ¡l Ll¡ q−m ®pe¡h¡¢qe£l i¡hj§¢aÑ r¥æ e¡ q−u h¡s−h h−m j¿¹hÉ L−le ¢a¢ez p¡−hL BCej¿»£ h−me, p¿»¡p cj−el m−rÉ L−W¡l fc−rf Bjl¡ ph pjuC

pjbÑe L¢l, a−h a¡ pw¢hd¡e −j±¢mL J j¡eh¡¢dL¡lpÇja q−a q−hz

haÑj¡e BCej¿»£l c¡¢h Ae¤k¡u£ pw¢hd¡−el 46 Ae¤−µR−clBJa¡u B−m¡QÉ Ce−Xj¢e¢V AdÉ¡−cn¢V S¡¢ll ®~hda¡ ¢e−uC ¢haLÑ l−u−Rz H hÉ¡f¡−l hÉ¡¢lø¡l ®l¡Le, HÉ¡X−i¡−LV j¢ae Mpl¦l hš²hÉ B−NC E−õM

Ll¡ q−u−Rz Hje¢L ®c−nl Afl HL pw¢hd¡e ¢h−no‘ X. S¢ql AdÉ¡−cn¢V i¡mj−a¡ f−s ®cM¡l B−N H ¢ho−u ®L¡e j¿¹hÉ Ll−a e¡ Q¡C−mJ H¢V pw¢hd¡−el JC Ae¤−µRcpÇja ¢Le¡ a¡ ¢e−u a¡lJ p−¾cq l−u−R h−m S¡e¡ez a−h hÉ¡¢lø¡l l¢gL¥m q−Ll j−a, h‰hå¥ ®nM j¢Sh

qaÉ¡ L¡ä−L ®k Ce−Xj¢e¢V ®cu¡ q−u¢Rm a¡ 46 Ae¤−µRc pÇja ¢Rm e¡,

¢L¿º HMe ®kV¡ Ll¡ q−u−R a¡l BCeNa ¢i¢š l−u−Rz ¢a¢e h−me, Ce−Xj¢e¢V ®cu¡ R¡s¡ plL¡−ll ¢hLÒf ¢LR¤ ¢Rm e¡ L¡lZ M¤−el A¢i−k¡N

j¡b¡u ¢e−u ®pe¡h¡¢qe£ hÉ¡l¡−L ¢gla e¡z f¡n¡f¡¢n ¢a¢e h−me, B¢jÑ HÉ¡−ƒ Hj¢e−aC H dl−el Ce−Xj¢e¢V ¢hd¡e l−u−R, a¡ e¢Vg¡C Ll−mC

Qma, ea¥e L−l Ce−Xj¢e¢V AdÉ¡−cn S¡¢l Ll¡l fË−u¡Se ¢Rm e z plL¡l pñha a¡ S¡−e e¡ ¢a¢e j¿¹hÉ L−lez a−h ¢a¢e H Lb¡J h−me,

®k AdÉ¡−cn S¡¢l Ll¡ q−u−R a¡ ph pjuC QÉ¡−m”−k¡NÉz Bl ¢eqa J ¢ek¡Ñ¢aa−cl f¢lh¡−ll al−g r¢af§le ®Q−u plL¡−ll ¢hl¦−Ü j¡jm¡l

p¤−k¡N J phpjuC l−u−Rz

BlJ fË¢a¢œ²u¡

−k±b A¢ik¡e c¡uj¤¢š² AdÉ¡−cn pÇf−LÑ ¢e−Sl fË¢a¢œ²u¡ hÉš² Ll−a ¢N−u pgl p‰£ p¡wh¡¢cL−cl L¡−R ®nM q¡¢pe¡ BlJ h−me, ¢hQ¡l f¡Ju¡ fË¢a¢V j¡e¤−ol p¡w¢hd¡¢eL A¢dL¡lz AdÉ¡−cn S¡¢ll j¡dÉ−j ®pC A¢dL¡l qle AhnÉC pw¢hd¡e ¢h−l¡d£ Hhw j¡eh¡¢dL¡−ll p¤Øfø mwOez ¢a¢e h−me, ®pe¡ A¢ik¡−e ®kph j¡-h¡h¡ a¡−cl p¿¹¡e q¡¢l−u−R, ®k ®h¡e a¡l i¡C−L q¡¢l−u−R, ®k ü¡j£ a¡l Ù»£−L q¡¢l−u−R a¡−cl ¢hQ¡l Q¡Ju¡l A¢dL¡l l−u−Rz AdÉ¡−cn S¡¢ll j¡dÉ−j a¡−cl ¢hQ¡l f¡Ju¡l fl ®LE

l¦Ü Ll−a f¡−l e¡z haÑj¡e plL¡l−L ®cn f¢lQ¡me¡u hÉbÑ E−õM L−l ¢a¢e h−me, p¿»¡p cj−el e¡−j ¢h−l¡d£ cm£u ®ea¡ LjÑ£−cl ¢ekÑ¡ae Ll¡ R¡s¡J A−eL ¢el£q j¡e¤o−L qaÉ¡ Ll¡ q−u−Rz Hph qaÉ¡l c¡u Hs¡−aC

S¡l£ Ll¡ q−u−R AdÉ¡−cnz j§ma A®~hdi¡−h ®pe¡h¡¢qe£ e¡j¡−e¡l flJ

a¡l¡ p¿»¡p cj−e pÇf§ZÑ hÉbÑ q−u−Rz

Ce−Xj¢e¢V AdÉ¡−c−nl fË¢a¢œ²u¡u h¡wm¡−c−nl Ju¡L¡pÑ f¡¢VÑl pi¡f¢a l¡−nc M¡e ®jee J p¡d¡le pÇf¡cL ¢hjm ¢hnÄ¡p HL ¢hhª¢a−a h−m−Re, ®k±b A¢ik¡−e qaÉ¡ J ¢e¢fs−el c¡u ®b−L ¢e−Sl Q¡jl¡ hy¡Q¡−e¡l AffË¡u¡−pl Awn ¢q−p−hC ®S¡V plL¡l HC AdÉ¡¡−cn S¡¢ll hÉhÙÛ¡ Ll−Rz BCe nª´Mm¡ lr¡l e¡−j p¡j¢lL h¡¢qe£ ¢e−u¡N J a¡l ®ki¡−h

L¡S L−l−R −S¡V plL¡l LMeJ ®pV¡l ®L¡e BCeNa ®~hd ¢i¢š ®cM¡−a f¡−l¢ez HC AdÉ¡−c−nl j¡dÉ−j ®pC ®hBCe£ L¡−Sl ¢hl¦−Ü SeN−e A¢i−k¡N Ll¡l J ¢hQ¡l Q¡Ju¡l A¢dL¡l qle Ll¡ q−m¡z ¢hhª¢a−a a¡l¡ HV¡−L pw¢hd¡e J j¡eh¡¢dL¡l f¢lf¿Û£ Hhw j¡e¤o qaÉ¡l m¡C−p¾p E−õM L−l h−me ¢hHe¢f S¡j¡u¡a ®S¡V H−c−nl SeN−el l−š² q¡a l¢”a L−lC l¡S®~e¢aL fË¢aù¡ ®f−u−Rz HC AdÉ¡−c−nl j¡dÉ−j a¡c e¤o qaÉ¡l l¡Se£¢al ®r−œ ea¥e AdÉ¡u pw−k¡¢Sa q−m¡ j¡œz a¡l¡ A¢hm−ð

HC L¡−m¡ AdÉ¡−cn fËaÉ¡q¡l Hhw ®pe¡ A¢ik¡−e qaÉ¡ J ¢e¢fs−el OVe¡hm£ ac−¿¹l j¡dÉ−j ¢hQ¡l Ll¡l c¡¢h S¡e¡ez

h¡wm¡−c−nl L¢jE¢eø f¡¢VÑl pi¡f¢a j”¤l¦m Bqp¡e M¡e Ce−Xj¢ ¢V AdÉ¡¡−cn−L pw¢hd¡e ¢h−l¡d£ E−õM L−l A¢hm−ð HV¡ h¡¢a−ml c¡¢h S¡¢e−u−Rez f¡¢VÑl j¡phÉ¡f£ SeS¡Nle LjÑp§Q£l Awn ¢q−p−h öœ²h¡l Y¡L¡ -QVÊNÊ¡j jq¡ps−Ll ¢h¢iæ ÙÛ¡−e B−u¡¢Sa fbpi¡u ¢a¢e h−me H AdÉ¡−cn BC−el n¡pe J NZa¡¢¿»L hÉhÙÛ¡ fË¢aù¡l f−b A¿l ¹¡u pª¢ø Ll−hz

fËbj B−m¡      S¡e¤u¡l£ 10, 2003

−k±b A¢i k¡e c¡uj¤¢š² AdÉ¡−cn S¡¢l

jªaÉpq r ¢a J A¢dL¡l r ¥−ZÀl fË−nÀ Bc¡m−a j¡jm¡ Qm−h e¡, ---------

-

fË¡u ¢ae j¡p p¿»¡−pl ¢hl¦−Ü f¢lQ¡¢ma ®k±b A¢ik¡−e ¢e−u¡¢Sa ®pe¡h¡¢qe£, ®e±h¡¢qe£, ¢h¢XBl, f¤¢mn, A¡ep¡lpq BCenª´Mm¡ h¡¢qe£l pcpÉ−cl pLm LjÑL¡ä−L c¡uj¤š² Ll¡ q−u−R (Ce−Xj¢e¢V)z NaL¡m hªqØf¢ah¡l l¡−a l¡øÊf¢a fË−gpl X. Cu¡SE¢Ÿe Bq−Çjc ®k±b A¢ik¡e c¡uj¤¢š² AdÉ¡−cn 2003 S¡¢l L−l−Rez Hl g−m ®k±b A¢ik¡eL¡−m pwO¢Va ®L¡−e¡ OVe¡l hÉ¡f¡−l ®L¡−e¡ Bc¡ma ®L¡−e¡ j¡jm¡ h¡ ®L¡−e¡ fËnÀ ®a¡m¡ k¡−h e¡z

HLC pw−N ®pe¡h¡¢qe£−L n¢eh¡l Afl¡−q²l j−dÉ ®Sm¡ J Ef−Sm¡ ®b−L fËaÉ¡q¡−ll ¢pÜ¡¿¹ q−|u−Rz NaL¡m hªqØf¢ah¡l pw¢nÔø ph h¡¢qe£−L H ¢pÜ¡¿¹ S¡¢e−u ®cJu¡ quz

Hl B−N c¤f¤−l Ae¤¢ùa j¢¿»pi¡l ¢h−no ®~hW−L H AdÉ¡−cn Ae¤−j¡ce Hhw ®k±b A¢ik¡−e ®pe¡h¡¢qe£ J ®e¡h¡¢qe£l i¨¢jL¡ f¤e¢edÑ¡l−Zl ¢pÜ¡¿¹ quz

−k±b A¢ik¡−e p¿»¡p qÊ¡p J BCenª´Mm¡ f¢l¢ÙÛ¢al cªnÉa Eæ¢a q−mJ ®p pju ®pe¡−cl q¡−a ®NËç¡−ll fl 43 hÉ¢š²l jªa¥É, A−e−Ll Jfl ¢ kÑ¡ae

J A¡C−el p£j¡l A¢a¢lš² pju BVL l¡M¡ fËi«¢a j¡eh¡¢dL¡l m´O−el A¢i−k¡N J−Wz

S¡¢l Ll¡ AdÉ¡−c−n Na 16 A−ƒ¡hl 2002 ®b−L NaL¡m 9 S¡e¤u¡l£ 2003 L¡kÑ¢chp fkÑ¿¹ 86 ¢ce −k±b A¢ik¡−e ¢e−u¡¢Sa ®pe¡h¡¢qe£ ®e±h¡¢qe£ ¢h¢XBl f¤¢mn Hhw Bep¡l h¡¢qe£l pc−pÉl LjL Ñ¡−ä−L c¡uj¤š² Ll¡ quz

BCe J pwpc ¢houL j¿»£ jJc¤c Bq−jc AhnÉ h−m−Re, f¢l¢d J fË¢œ²u¡ f¤e¢eÑd¡lZ L−l ®k±b A¢ik¡e Qm−hz NaL¡m pwh¡c ¢hË¢gw−u ¢a¢e AdÉ¡−cn−L pw¢hd¡epÇja A¢i¢qa L−l h−me, pwp−c f¡p Ll¡−e¡l

pju ¢a¢e AdÉ¡−cn S¡¢ll L¡lZ ¢hÙ¹¡¢la hÉ¡MÉ¡ Ll−hez

NaL¡m Ae¤¢ùa j¿»£pi¡l ¢h−no ®~hW−L Af¡−lne ¢LÓeq¡V e¡−j f¢lQ¡¢ma (AØfø) pi¡f¢a−aÄ ®~hW−L j¢¿»pi¡l pcpÉ J pw¢nÔø p¢Qhl¡ Ef¢ÙÛa ¢R−mez

B−c−n k¡ B−Rx NaL¡m l¡−a S¡¢l Ll¡ AdÉ¡−c−n hm¡ q−u−R ®c−nl BCenª´Mm¡ lr¡l fË−u¡S−e ®hp¡j¢lL fËn¡pe−L pq¡ua¡ fËc¡−el SeÉ

plL¡l La«ÑL 16 A−ƒ¡hl ®cJu¡ B−cn Hhw flha£Ñ pj−u ®cJu¡ pLm

B−cn h¡Ù¹h¡u−e ®k±b A¢ik¡−e ¢e−u¡¢Sa BCen´Mm¡ h¡¢qe£l pcpÉ h¡ c¡¢uaÄfË¡ç h¡¢š²−cl a¡−cl c¡¢uaÄ ¢h−hQe¡u ®cJu¡ B−cn, BVL, ®NËç¡l, aõ¡¢n J ¢S‘¡p¡h¡cpq pLm fËL¡l L¡S J Nªq£a hÉhÙÛ¡ ®b−L pÇf¤ZÑ c¡uj¤š² Ll¡ q−m¡z fËQ¢ma BCe J B−cnpj¤−q k¡C b¡L¥L H c¡uj¤¢š² (AØfø) S¡ej¡−ml ®L¡e r¢a q−m L¡−l¡ A¢dL¡l r¥ZÀ q−m ®LE B¢bÑLi¡−h r¢aNËÙÛ q−m, ®LE n¡l£¢lL h¡ j¡e¢pLi¡−h r¢aNËÙ¹ q−m h¡

®LE AeÉ ®L¡−e¡i¡−h pwr¥Ü q−m a¡l SeÉ B−cn fËc¡eL¡l£ h¡ L¡kÑ¢ehÑ¡q£ h¡ nª´Mm¡ h¡¢qe£l ®L¡−e¡ pcpÉ h¡ plL¡¢l LjÑLaÑ¡l ¢hl¦−Ü ®L¡−e¡ Bc¡m−a ®L¡−e¡ fËL¡l ®cJu¡¢e h¡ ®g±Sc¡¢l j¡jm¡ Ll¡ k¡−h e¡

h¡ −L¡−e¡ Bc¡m−a ®L¡−e¡ fËL¡l ®cJu¡e£ h¡ ®g±Sc¡l£ j¡jm¡ Ll¡ k¡−h

e¡ h¡ ®L¡−e¡ Bc¡m−a ®L¡−e¡ fËL¡l BCeNa L¡kÑd¡l¡ Qm−h e¡z H pÇf−LÑ ®L¡−e¡ Bc¡m−al L¡−R ®L¡−e¡ A¢i−k¡N h¡ fËnÀ E›¡fe Ll k¡−h

e¡z H hÉ¡f¡−l ®L¡−e¡ j¡jm¡ q−m h¡ ®L¡−e¡ l¡u h¡ B−cn h¡ ¢pÜ¡¿¹

®cJu¡ q−m a¡ h¡¢am, AL¡kÑLl q−h h¡ q−u−R h−m NZÉ q−hz (AØfø) haÑj¡e plL¡l L¡S öl¦ L−l BCenª´Mm¡l Eæ¢al SeÉ plL¡l®hn ¢LR¤ fËn¡p¢eL J BCe fËZue pwœ²¡¿¹ fc−rf NËqZ L−lz

¢a¢e h−me plL¡l BCnª´Mm¡l Eæ¢a Ll−a hÜf¢lLl Ahe¢an£m BCenª´Mm¡l ®fËr¡f−V f¤¢m−nl p£j¡hÜa¡l L¡l−Z AiÉ¿¹l£Z ¢el¡fš¡ SeN−Zl ¢el¡fš¡, p¿»¡p cje J A®~hd AÙ» EÜ¡−ll SeÉ ¢h−no fc−rf

NËqZ Af¢lq¡kÑ q−u f−sz

BCej¿»£ h−me, plL¡l Seü¡−bÑ 16 A−ƒ¡hl, 2002 B−cnh−m ®hp¡h¢lL fËn¡pe−L pq¡ua¡ fËc¡−el SeÉ fË¢alr¡ h¡¢qe£, ¢h¢XBl,

f¤¢mn Bep¡l h¡¢qe£pq ®hp¡¢lL fËn¡p−el pw−N pjeÄ−ul j¡dÉ−j ®k±b A¢ik¡e(AØfø)z

SeLã            S¡e¤u¡l£ 10, 2003

−pe¡ e¡j−e¡C ¢Rm A®~hd a¡l Bh¡l c¡uj¤¢š² ¢L−pl

−k±b  A¢ik¡−e  ¢h¢iæ  jªa¥Él  OVe¡l  ®fËrf−V  hªqØf¢ah¡l  S¡¢lL« c¡uj¤¢š² AdÉ¡−c−n h¡ Ce−Xj¢e¢V A¢XÑeÉ¡−¾pl fË¢ah¡c S¡¢e−u−R ¢h¢iæ jqmz ®c−nl n£oÑ pw¢hd¡e ¢h−on‘ X. L¡j¡m ®q¡−pe h−m−Re, ®LE Q¡C−m AhnÉC AdÉ¡−cn¢Vl BCeNa ®~hda¡ QÉ¡−m” Ll−a f¡−lez fËd¡e ¢h−l¡d£ cm BJu¡j£ m£−Nl p¡d¡lZ pÇf¡cL Bë¤m S¢mm h−m−Re HC AdÉ¡−cn  ®c−nl  p¡w¢hd¡e  J  ®j±¢mL  A¢dL¡l  f¢lf¿Û£z  Hl j¡dÉ−j j¡e¤−ol BC−el BnËu ®eu¡l p¡w¢hd¡¢eL A¢dL¡l MhÑ q−m¡z NZa¡¢¿»L cm ¢qp¡−h Bjl¡ H dl−el AdÉ¡−cn pjbÑe Ll−a f¡¢l e¡z

¢a¢e h−me, Bl j¡œ L−uL ¢ce flC S¡a£u pwp−c A¢d−hnez plL¡l Q¡C−m ®pM¡−e B−m¡Qe¡ L−lC H hÉ¡f¡−l HLV¡ ¢pÜ¡¿¹ ¢e−a f¡laz a¡

e¡ L−l HMe AdÉ¡−cn S¡¢l Ll¡u fËj¡¢Za q−m¡ ®k, rja¡p£el¡ pwpc£u NZa−¿» ¢hnÄ¡p L−l e¡ Hhw h¡ pwpc−L L¡kÑLl Ll−a Q¡u e¡z S¡¢lL«a AdÉ¡−c−nl ¢hl¦−Ü a¡l¡ ¢L dl−el fc−rf −e−h S¡e−a Q¡C−m BJu¡j£

m£−Nl ea¥e HC p¡d¡lZ pÇf¡dL h−me, cm£u ®g¡l¡−j B−m¡Qe¡ L−lC

Bjl¡  ®pC  ¢pÜ¡¿¹  ®ehz  H  R¡s¡  pwp−cl  Bpæ  A¢d−hn−e  ¢hou¢V E›¡¢fa q−m Bjl¡ B−m¡Qe¡u Awn ®eh Hhw plL¡−ll HC fc−r−fl fË¢ah¡c  S¡e¡hz  S¡a£u  pj¡Sa¡¢¿»L  cm  S¡pc  HL¡w−nl  pi¡f¢a q¡p¡e¤m  qL  Ce¤J  h¤dh¡l  S¡¢lL«a  c¡uj¤¢š²  AdÉ¡−c−nl  pj¡−m¡Qe¡ L−l−Rez ¢a¢e h−me, Hl g−m j¡e¤o BC−el BnËu m¡−il p¡w¢hd¡¢eL A¢dL¡l ®b−L h¢b·a q−hz

H¢c−L h¡wm¡−c−nl pw¢hd¡e fË−Za¡−cl AeÉaj X. L¡j¡m −q¡−pe H fËpw−N ¢h¢h¢p−L ®cu¡ a¡vr¢ZL HL fË¢a¢œ²u¡u h−m−Re, ¢h−no ¢LR¤ f¢l¢ÙÛ¢a−a H dl−el c¡uj¤¢š² ®cu¡l ¢hd¡e pw¢hd¡−el 46 d¡l¡u ®cu¡ l−u−Rz  ¢L  ¢L  AhÙÛ¡u H  dl−el  hÉhÙÛ¡  ®eJu¡  ®k−a  f¡−l  a¡l p£j¡−lM¡J ¢e¢cÑø Ll¡ l−u−R a¡−az plL¡l k¢c H dl−el hÉhÙÛ¡ NËq−el fË−u¡Se£ua¡ Ae¤ih L−l b¡−L a¡q−m a¡ pwp−c B−m¡Qe¡l j¡dÉ−jC

Ll−a f¡laz ®pM¡eL¡l B−m¡Qe¡uC Øfø q−u ®ka ®k hÉ¡f¡lV¡ 46 d¡l¡ p£j¡−lM¡l j−dÉ B−R ¢Le¡z AdÉ¡−cn S¡¢ll j¡dÉ−j ®a¡ Hje ¢LR¤

Ll¡l Lb¡ euz ¢a¢e h−me, plL¡−ll c¡¢uaÄ ¢Rm ®kph jªaɤl OVe¡ O−V−R ®p…−m¡ ac¿¹ L−l ®pC ac¿¹ ¢l−f¡−VÑl B−m¡−L hÉhÙÛ¡ ®eu¡z j¡e¤o ¢RmJ Hje ¢LR¤l A−fr¡uz HL fË−nÀl Sh¡−h ¢a¢e h−me, S¡l£L«a AdÉ¡−c−nl BCeNa ®~hda¡ QÉ¡−m” Ll¡ ®k−a f¡−lz ®LE Q¡C−m a¡ Ll−a  f¡l−hz  h¡wm¡−cn  p¤fË£j−L¡−VÑl  B−lL  n£oÑ  BCe‘  hÉ¡¢lø¡l ®l¡Le E¢Ÿe j¡qj¤c h−m−Re, ®pe¡h¡¢qe£−L ®k L¡−S e¡j¡−e¡ q−u¢Rm a¡

¢Rm A®~hd, a¡l ®L¡e BCeNa ¢i¢š ¢Rm e¡z H L¡−Sl ®L¡e c uj¤¢š² q−a  f¡−l  e¡z  L¡lZ  ®pe¡h¡¢qe£−L  L¡lJ  h¡s£−a  aõ¡¢n,  L¡E−L −NËga¡l,  ¢ek¡Ñae  h¡  ®L¡e  OVe¡  ac−¿¹l  HM¢au¡l  ®cu¡  qu¢ez BCenª´Mm¡ lr¡l Lb¡ h−m a¡−cl hÉhq¡l Ll¡ q−u−Rz HC L¡S Ll−a

¢N−u a¡l¡ ¢LR¤ ®m¡L−L ®j−l ®g−m, HV¡ p¡d¡lZ Afl¡dz BCeNa rja¡l h¡C−l a¡l¡ H L¡S L−lRz H dl−el L¡−Sl SeÉ a¡−cl c¡uj¤¢š²

®cu¡ k¡u e¡z 

 HC l¦m¢V−a HLj¡œ fËnÀ E›¡¢fa qCu¡−R ab¡ HLj¡œ ¢hQÑ  ¡¢ khou qCm HC ®k, ®k±b A¢ik¡e c¡uj¤¢š² BCe, 2003 pw¢hd¡−el ¢h¢d ¢hd¡e p¡−f−r fËZ£a qCu¡−R ¢Le¡?

fËb−jC Bj¡−cl pw¢hd¡−el fËbj i¡−Nl Ae¤−µRc 1 ®cM¡ Aa£h …l¦aÄf§ZÑ h¢mu¡ ¢e−jÀ Ae¤¢mMe qCmz

fËS¡a¿»      1z h¡wm¡−cn HL¢V HLL, ü¡d£e J p¡h −Ñ i±jfËS¡a¿», k¡q¡

   “NZfËS¡a¿»£ h¡wm¡−cn” e¡−j f¢l¢Qa qC−hz

Ae¤−µRc 1 ¢V plmi¡−h f¡W L¢l−m Cq¡ L¡y−Ql ja üµR ®k, HC ®cn¢V NZfËS¡a¿»£ h¡wm¡−cnz Ab¡Ñv HC ®cn¢V qCm SeNe à¡l¡ n¡¢oa HL¢V l¡øÊz

Aaxfl pw¢hd¡−el 7 Ae¤µRc¢V fkÑ¡−m¡Qe¡ Ll¡ Aa£h …l¦aÄf§ZÑ h¢mu¡ ¢e−jÀ Ae¤¢mMe Ll¡ qCmx  

pw¢hd¡−el fË¡d¡eÉ 7z(1) fËS¡a−¿»l pLm rja¡l j¡¢mL SeNZ; Hhw SeN−Zl f−r

®pC  rja¡l fËu¡N −Lhm HC pw¢hd¡−el Ad£e J La«Ñ−aÄ L¡kÑLl qChz

(2) SeN−Zl A¢ifË¡−ul flj A¢ihÉ¢š²l©−f HC pw¢hd¡e fËS¡a-

−¿»l p−hÑ¡µQ BCe Hhw AeÉ ®L¡e BCe k¢c HC pw¢hd¡el p¢qa Apj”p qu, a¡q¡ qC−m ®pC BC−el kaM¡¢e Ap¡j”pÉf§ZÑ, aaM¡¢e h¡¢am qC- −hz

Ef−l¡š² Ae−¤µRc 7(1) fkÑ¡−m¡Qe¡u Cq¡ f¢lú¡l ®k, NZfËS¡a¿»£ h¡wm¡−c®n pLm rja¡l j¡¢mL SeNe Hhw SeNe a¡q¡−cl HC rja¡  fË−u¡N Hhw L¡kÑLl L¢l−he HC pw¢hd¡−el Ad£e J LaѪ−aÄz Ab¡Ñv Bj¡−cl HC ®c−n p−hÑ¡µQ BCe ab¡ j§m BCe ab¡ ®j±¢mL BCe ab¡ phÑ−nÊù BCe qCm Bj¡−cl HC pw¢hd¡ez pLm BC−el Efl HC pw¢hd¡−el fË¡d¡eÉ b¡¢L−hz pLm BC−el Evp ÙÛm HC pw¢hd¡ez h¡wm¡−c®nl p£j¡e¡l j−dÉ ph¡ÑµQ BCe qCm Bj¡−cl HC pw¢hd¡ez HC ®cn¢V f¢lQ¡¢ma qC−h öd¤j¡œ HC pw¢hd¡−el Ad£e J La−«ÑaÄz Ab¡Ñv HC pw¢hd¡−el Ad£e J La«Ñ−aÄ HC fËS¡a−¿»l pLm L¡kÑœ²j f¢lQ¡¢ma qC−hz Cq¡l ®L¡e hÉaÉu O¢V−h e¡z

 HC fkÑ¡−u pw¢hd¡−el fËÙ¹¡he¡l 4bÑ fÉ¡l¡¢V B−m¡Lf¡a Ll¡ fË−u¡Se ¢hd¡u ¢e−jÀ Ae¤¢mMe qCmx

“ Bjl¡ cªti¡−h ®O¡oZ¡ L¢l−a¢R ®k, Bjl¡ k¡q¡−a ü¡d£e pš¡u pjª¢Ü m¡i L¢l−a f¡¢l Hhw j¡ehS¡¢al fËN¢an£m Bn¡-BL¡wM¡l p¢qa p‰¢a

lr¡ L¢lu¡ B¿¹¡SÑ¡¢aL n¡¢¿¹ J pq−k¡¢Na¡l ®r−œ f§ZÑ i¥¢jL¡ f¡me L¢l−a f¡¢l, ®pC SeÉ h¡wm¡−c−nl SeN−Zl A¢ifË¡−ul A¢ihÉ¢š²ül©f

HC pw¢hd¡−el fË¡d¡eÉ Ar¥æ l¡M¡ Hhw Cq¡l lrZ, pjbÑe J ¢elfš¡¢hd¡e Bj¡−cl f¢hœ LaÑhÉz” 

Ef−l h¢ZÑa fËÙ¹¡he¡l 4bÑ fÉ¡l¡ ®j¡a¡−hL h¡wm¡−cnl SeN−Zl A¢ihÉ¢š²ül©f HC pw¢hd¡−el fË¡d¡eÉ Ar¥æ l¡M¡ Hhw Cq¡l lrZ, pjbÑe J ¢el¡fš¡¢hd¡e HC ®c−nl fË¢a¢V e¡N¢l−Ll AhnÉ f¢hœ LaÑhÉ z AbÑÉ¡v HC ®c−nl fË¢a¢V p¡w¢hd¡¢eL fc¡¢dL¡l£, fËS¡a−¿»l pLm LjÑLaÑ¡ LjÑQ¡l£ Hhw p−h¡Ñf¢l fË¢a¢V e¡N¢l−Ll f¢hœ LaÑhÉ qCm HC pw¢hd¡−el pLm ¢hd¡e lr¡ Ll¡, Cq¡−L f§ZÑ pjbÑe Ll¡ Hhw HC pw¢hd¡e−L ®Lq k¡q¡−a mwOe L¢l−a e¡ f¡−l a¡q¡l ¢el¡fš¡ fËc¡e Ll¡ z pLm p¡w¢hd¡¢eL fc¡¢dL¡l£NZ ab¡ l¡øÊf¢a, fËd¡ej¿»£, Øf£L¡l, fËd¡e ¢hQ¡lf¢a Hhw ¢hQ¡lf¢aNZ, ®Xf¤¢V Øf£L¡l, j¿»£, fË¢aj¿»£,fËd¡e ¢ehÑ¡Qe L¢jne¡l Hhw ¢ehÑ¡Qe L¢jne¡lNZ, jq¡ ¢qp¡h-¢el£rL J ¢eu¿»L, plL¡l£ LjÑ L¢jn−el pcpÉNZ nfb ®eJu¡l pju HC nfb f¡W L−le −k, ay¡q¡l¡ ®k ®L¡e j§−mÉ h¡wm¡−c−nl HC pw¢hd¡−el lre, pjbÑe J ¢el¡fš¡ ¢hd¡e L¢l−hez

l¡−øÊl ¢ae¢V A‰ kb¡- ¢ehÑ¡q£ ¢hi¡N, BCepi¡ Hhw ¢hQ¡l ¢hi¡Nz HC ¢ae¢V A‰C pw¢hd¡e à¡l¡ pªøz AbÑ¡v HC ¢ae¢V A−‰l ®LqC p¡hÑ−i±j euz fË−aÉL¢V A‰ HC pw¢hd¡−el ¢h¢d ¢hd¡e ü¡−f−r ü¡d£ez −nËùaÄ  öd¤j¡œ HC pw¢hd¡−elz pw¢hd¡−el ®nËùaÄ j¡−e SeN−Zl ®nËùaÄz SeN−el Bn¡- BL¡´M¡−L d¡le L−l SeN−Zl f−r “Constituent Assembly” −cn f¢lQ¡me¡l HC c¢mm “NZfËS¡a¿»£ h¡wm¡−c−nl pw¢hd¡e” fËeue L¢lu¡¢R−mez Ae¤−µRc 7(2) ®j¡a¡−hL SeN−Zl A¢ifË¡−ul flj A¢ihÉ¢š²l¦−f HC pw¢hd¡e fËS¡a−¿»l p−h¡ÑµQ BCez Ab¡Ñv S N−Zl A¢ifË¡u h¡ CµR¡l fË¢agme

HC pw¢hd¡ez Ae¤−µRc 7(1) ®j¡a¡−hL fËS¡a¿» ab¡ HC ®c−nl pLm rja¡l j¡¢mL SeNZzHhw

Ae¤−µRc 7(2) ®j¡a¡−hL ®pC SeN−Zl A¢ifË¡u h¡ CµR¡l flj A¢ihÉ¢š²l¦−f h¡ fË¢agme ül¦f f¢hœ

c¢mm “NZfËS¡a¿»£ h¡wm¡−c−nl pw¢hd¡e” z  ehÑ¡q£ ¢hi¡N, BCepi¡ Hhw ¢hQ¡l ¢hi¡N HC pw¢hd¡−el

¢h¢d ¢hd¡e j¡¢eu¡ Q¢m−a h¡dÉz

Afl¢c−L Ae¤−µRc  7(2) Ae¤p¡−l SeN−Zl A¢ifË¡−ul flj A¢ihÉ¢š²l©−f HC pw¢hd¡e fËS¡a−¿»l p−î¡QÑ BCe Hhw AeÉ ®L¡e BCe k¢c HC pw¢hd¡−el p¢qa Ap¡j”pÉ qu, a¡q¡ qC−m ®pC

BC−el kaM¡¢e pw¢hd¡−el p¢qa Ap¡j”pÉf§ZÑ, aaM¡¢e h¡¢am qCu¡ k¡C−hz Ab¡Ñv HC pw¢hd¡e L¡kÑLl qJu¡l a¡¢lM qC−a HC pw¢hd¡−el ¢h¢d ¢hd¡−el f¢lf¿Û£ ®L¡e BCe b¡¢L−h e¡ Hhw fËZue Ll¡ k¡C−h

e¡z HacÚp−šÅJ k¢c ®L¡e BCe HC pw¢hd¡−el f¢lf¿Û£l¦−f ËZ£a qCu¡ k¡u a−h a¡q¡ qC−m Eš²

BCe aaM¡¢e h¡¢am h¢mu¡ NZÉ qC−h kaM¡¢e a¡q¡ HC pw¢hd¡−el p¢qa Ap¡j”pÉf§ZÑz kMeC ®L¡e

BCe pw¢hd¡−el ®L¡e ¢h¢d ¢hd¡−el f¢lf¿Û£ l¦−f fËZ£a qC−h ab¡ mwOe L−l fËeue Ll¡ qC−h a¡q¡

qC−m Bc¡m−al f¢hœ LaÑhÉ qC−h Eš² BCe¢V−L h¡¢am h¢mu¡ ®O¡oe¡ Ll¡z L¡lZ ¢hQ¡lLNZ

a¡q¡−cl c¡¢uaÄ NËq−el f§−hÑ HC j−jÑ nfb f¡W L¢lu¡ b¡−Le ®k, ay¡q¡l¡ HC pw¢hd¡−el lre, pjbÑe J

¢el¡fš¡ ¢hd¡e L¢l−hez

fËp‰œ²−j, fËd¡e ¢hQ¡lf¢a h¡ ¢hQ¡lLNZ LaѪL ®k nfb (h¡ ®O¡oe¡) f¡W L¢lu¡ b¡−Le a¡q¡

¢e−jÀ Ae¤¢mMe qCmx-

6z fËd¡e ¢hQ¡lf¢a h¡ ¢hQ¡lLz -fËd¡e ¢hQ¡lf¢al ®r−œ l¡øÊf¢a LaѪL Hhw p¤fË£j ®L¡−VÑl ®L¡e ¢hi¡−Nl ®L¡e ¢hQ¡l−Ll ®r−œ fËd¡e ¢hQ¡lf¢a LaѪL ¢ejÀ¢m¢Ma gl−j nfb (h¡ ®O¡oZ¡)- f¡W f¢lQ¡¢ma qC−hx

“B¢j, ....................... fËd¡e ¢hQ¡lf¢a (h¡ ®rœja p¤fË£j ®L¡−VÑl Bf£m/q¡C−L¡VÑ ¢hi¡−Nl ¢hQ¡lL) ¢ek¤š² qCu¡ pnËÜ¢Q−š nfb (h¡ cªti¡−h ®O¡oZ¡) L¢l−a¢R ®k, B¢j BCe-Ae¤k¡u£ J ¢hnÄÙ¹a¡l p¢qa Bj¡l f−cl LaÑhÉ f¡me L¢lh;

B¢j h¡wm¡−c−nl fË¢a AL«¢œj ¢hnÄ¡p J Be¤NaÉ ®f¡oZ L¢lh;

B¢j h¡wm¡−c−nl pw¢hd¡e J BC−el lr Z, pjbÑe J ¢el¡fš¡¢hd¡e L¢lh;

Hhw B¢j i£¢a h¡ Ae¤NËq, Ae¤l¡N h¡ ¢hl¡−Nl hnha£Ñ e¡ qCu¡ pL−ml fË¢a BCe-Ae¤k¡u£ kb¡¢h¢qa BQlZ L¢lhz”

(në¡¢cl ¢e−Q V¡e¡ −lM¡ A¡j¡l ®cJu¡)

HMe Bjl¡ ®cMh S¡a£u pwp−cl BCe fËeu−el HM¢au¡l pÇf−LÑ Bj¡−cl pw¢hd¡e ¢L               h¢mu¡−Rz HC ®r−œ pw¢hd¡−el Ae¤−µRc 65 (1) E−õM Ll¡ ¢h−no fË−u¡Se h¢mu¡ ¢e−jÀ Ae¤¢mMe qCmx

pwpc fË¢aù¡  65(1) “  S¡a£u pwpc”  e¡−j h¡wm¡−c−nl HL¢V pwpc b¡¢L−h Hhw HC pw¢hd¡−el ¢hd¡e¡hm£-p¡−f−r fËS¡a−¿»l BCefËZue-rja¡ pwp−cl Efl eÉÙ¹ qC−h;  

Ef−ll Ae¤−µRc 65(1) fkÑ¡−m¡Qe¡ L¢l−m Cq¡ üµR L¡−Ql ja f¢lú¡l q−u E−W ®k, Bj¡−cl jq¡e S¡a£u pwpc HC pw¢hd¡−el ‘¢hd¡e¡hm£ p¡−f−r’ fËS¡a−¿»l pLm BCefËeue- rja¡ pwlre L−lez fËS¡a−¿»l pLm BCe BCefËeue rja¡ öd¤j¡œ pwp−cl Hhw HC BCe fËeu−el hÉf¡−l pwpc

ü¡d£e z HacÚp−šÅJ, HC BCe fËe−ul ®r−œ pwp−cl ¢LR¤ p¤¢e¢cÑø p£j¡hÜa¡ B−Rz Ab¡Ñv pwpc−L BCe fËeue L¢l−a qC−h pw¢hd¡−el ‘¢hd¡e¡hm£ p¡−f−r’z S¡a£u pwpc ®L¡e i¡−hC pw¢hd¡−el ¢hd¡e¡hm£l f¢lf¿Û£ ®L¡e BCe fËeue L¢l−he e¡z S¡a£u pwpc BCe fËeu−el ®r−œ Af¢lp£j rja¡h¡e eez S¡a£u pwpc−L LMeC i¥m Ll¡ ¢Lwh¡ i¢¥m−m Q¢m−h e¡ ®k, ay¡q¡−cl rja¡ pw¢hd¡−e AeÉ¡eÉ ¢h¢d ¢hd¡e à¡l¡ p£j¡hÜz L¡lZ pw¢hd¡e ¢m¢Maz Ab¡Ñv h¡wm¡−c−nl SeNZ pLm−LC HC pw¢hd¡−el ¢h¢d ¢hd¡e −j¡a¡−hL Qm¡l ¢e−cÑne¡ ¢c−u−Rez SeN−el HC ¢e−cÑne¡ pð¢ma HC pw¢hd¡eC qCm ®cn f¢lQ¡me¡l j§m Q¡¢mL¡n¢š² Hhw Bj¡−cl HC jq¡e f¢hœ pw¢hd¡e Cq¡l p¢qa Ap¡j”pÉ pLm BCe−L ¢eu¿»Z L−lz 

H fkÑ¡−u pw¢hd¡−el Ae¤−µRc 26 E−õM Ll¡ ¢h−no fË−u¡Se ¢mu¡ ¢e−jÀ Ae¤¢mMe qCmx

 −j±¢mL A¢dL¡−ll   26(1) HC i¡−Nl ¢hd¡e¡hm£l p¢qa Apj”pÉ pLm fËQ¢ma BCe kaM¡¢e p¢qa Apj”p BCe                      Ap¡j”pÉf§ZÑ, HC pw¢hd¡e-fËhaÑe qC−a ®pC pLm BC−el aaM¡¢e h¡¢am   h¡¢am qCu¡ k¡C−hz

(2) l¡øÊ HC i¡−Nl ®L¡e ¢hd¡−el p¢qa Apj”p ®L¡e BCe fËZue 

 L¢l−he e¡ Hhw Ae¤l©f ®L¡e BCe fËZ£a qC−m a¡q¡ H i¡−Nl

 ®L¡e ¢hd¡−el p¢qa kaM¡¢e Ap¡”pÉf§ZÑ, aaM¡¢e h¡¢am qCu¡ k¡C−hz”

Ae¤−µRc 26(1) fkÑ¡−m¡Qe¡u HV¡ Ly¡−Ql ja üµR ®k, h¡wm¡−c−nl p£j¡e¡l j−dÉ fËQ¢ma pLm BCe kaM¡¢e pw¢hd¡−el a«a£u i¡−N h¢ZÑa ®j±¢mL A¢dL¡l Hl p¢qa Ap¡j”pÉf§ZÑ h¡ p¡wO¢oÑL h¡ ®~hf¢laÉj§mL HC pw¢hd¡e fËhaÑe ab¡ pw¢hd¡e L¡kÑLl£ qJu¡l a¡¢lM qC−a ®pC pLm fËQ¢ma BC−el aaM¡¢e h¡¢am qCu¡ ¢Nu¡−Rz

 Afl¢c−L, Ae¤−µRc 26 (2) Hl ¢hd¡e ®j¡a¡−hL l¡øÊ HC pw¢hd¡−el a«a£u i¡−Nl ®L¡e ¢hd¡−el p¢qa Ap¡j”pÉf§ZÑ ®L¡e BCe fËeue L¢l−he e¡z HacÚ p−šÅJ l¡øÊ k¢c a«a£u i¡−Nl ®L¡e ¢hd¡−el p¢qa Ap¡j”pÉ ®L¡e BCe fËeue L¢lu¡ b¡−L a¡q¡ qC−m Eš² BCe HC i¡−Nl ¢hd¡−el p¢qa kaM¡¢e Ap¡j”pÉf§ZÑ aaM¡¢e h¡¢am qCu¡ k¡C−h z