Você está na página 1de 4


The government deliveries services through administration. The link between the administration and the citizens is very obvious.
Even, it has, now, been a crucial issue for the government to attempt for including the general people in administrative affairs. In this
regard, the level of relationship demands a mutual understanding and trust. However, the line of status and authority doesnt
commence from the same place. It is all in all in developing countries like Bangladesh. It sometimes crosses jurisdiction while
functioning. According to the doctrine of rule of law, nothing is above law. Rather, law should address everything. Similarly,
administration must too follow some rules and regulations.

Analysis of the Development of Administrative Law through PIL


OF 2013.

The Matter of PIL:

The Amendment to the Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2004 as made by the Anti-Corruption Commission (amendment) Act 2013
by way of insertion section 32K.
The Discriminatory and ultra vires provisions of section 32K of the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment), 2013

Judgments :
The case was filed and moved by Advocate Manzill Murshid, President; HRPB and Rule Nisi upon the respondents was issued. That
after hearing the parties the Honble High Court Division passed judgment in making the rule absolute and the law of Anti-Corruption
Commission (amendment) Act 2013 (published in official Gazette on 20.11.13),declared illegal and void.

Outcomes in Administrative Law:

By declaring the section 32k of Anti Corruption Commission ( Amendment) Act 2013 as illegal and ultra vires, the rights to equal
protection of law and the rights to be treated in accordance with law and had been upgraded. This section was at that amendment in
order to save certain group of people of the state though it violated the spirit of rule of law. High government officials and influential
persons in the state were the beneficiaries of this section. The outcomes of this judgment on the Anti-Corruption Commission Act
went against the decision of ACC. This section could serve as malafide and ultra vires. People after being involved with corruption
could get rid of allegation. The scope of releasing the big personnel from this allegation only on the ground of power and status could
rise. Anti Corruption Commission is supposed to bring corrupts under the shadow of law in order to make public property saved. It
acts as a quasi judicial body. Its judicial justice plays an important role in curbing corruption and ensuring the rule of law not the rule
of influential. Now, nobody either they are powerful or less powerful cannot go above of law. For example, Engr, Mosarrof Hussain
MP, the setting minister of the Ministry of Public Works & Housing, had to appear to the investigative team of ACC for hearing the
allegation of corruption. It is not less initiative in terms of the spirit of equality before law. Thus, ACC had to consider their act upon
the judgment of PIL.


Judgment on 05.05.2016.

The Matter of PIL:

Constitution 16th Amendment challenge

The HC declared that the amendment is illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of the separation of state powers and the
independence of the judiciary.

Outcomes in Administrative Law:

According to the doctrine of Separation of Powers, the state activism will be categorized into three sections: making laws by the
Parliament, implementing those laws by the executive and scrutinizing those laws by the Judiciary in order to maintain check and
balance. Besides, this doctrine ensures that no organ encroach on the jurisdiction of other organ within the state lest the state get
politicized. But, the 16th amendment of the constitution, the provision of removal of the judges of the Supreme Court, raised a new
question about the state of separation of powers in Bangladesh. It has been argued that the parliament can encroach on its jurisdiction
and the judiciary can get bias which is a great barrier to the spirit of rule of law through this amendment. The parliament passed this
amendment. It is obvious that the people in the parliament and in the judiciary are completely different. The former is political and the

latter is apolitical. Besides, our judiciary seems to be political due to some constitutional articles that the president, the executive
person is empowered to deal with posting, transfer and other benefits of the judges. By this amendment, another dimension could add
to this process of politicization. But, fortunately, this judgment declared the act of this amendment in the parliament invalid and
unconstitutional. The parliament has been prohibited from crossing its limit and the rule of law has been ensured.