The ruling passed by the High Court that government officials cannot contest in the national parliament elections within three years of their retirement, is an appropriate decision. We hail the ruling.
The court has dismissed the four separate writ petitions questioning the validity of the ruling that civil and military bureaucrats cannot take part in the Jatiya Sangsad (national parliament) election less than three years after they retire from service.
After deliberations of the concerned legal counsels in this regard on Monday, the High Court bench comprising Justice Naima Haider and Justice Kazi Zeenat Huq stated that government officials would not be able to contest in the election until three years had passed since their retirement.
Challenging this ruling, Md Shameem Kamal, Md Abdul Mannan, Ataur Rahman Pradhan and Ratan Chandra Pandit filed a writ petition, stating that contesting in the election is a fundamental right. Barring civil servants from contesting in the parliament election after retirement or resignation is a violation of basic premise of Article 27 of the constitution concerning equal rights.
According to Section 12 (1) (F) of the present Representation of the People (RPO), civil servants cannot contest in the election for three years after retirement. This clause of the RPO is justified and must be obeyed. There are several instances in the past where many government officials contested in the election immediately upon retirement.
The court was very right in observing that civil servants are not common citizens. They have influence in the administration even after retirement.
In fact, some bureaucrats, along with field-level officials, unjustly used their influence in their constituencies while still in service. A certain former government official, after resigning as principal secretary, contested in the elections a few months later and became a member of parliament as well as minister. Another civil servant, the very next day of his retirement, was sworn in as minister. These incidents created a stir both in the public administration and in the political arena.
Regarding the High Court ruling, deputy attorney general Amit Dasgupta said that the "High Court's observation is that former government officials are not general citizens and they may continue to wield influence of their offices even after retirement." There are innumerable instances where the government officials use the administration as a tool to build their political future.
That is why when the three-year clause was added to the RPO, both ruling party and opposition leadership accepted this. The court was very right in observing that civil servants are not common citizens. They have influence in the administration even after retirement.
The High Court coincidentally came up with this ruling at a juncture when nominations for the 12th Jatiya Sangsad election are underway. The deadline to withdraw nominations is 17 December. That day it will be clear which government officials are contesting in the polls. It will be no problem if a government official contests three years after retirement. However, if it is less than three years, he will not be considered qualified for contest.
It is the election commission that is responsible to ensure that no one violating the court order and ignoring the RPO clause will be able to contest in the election. The commission has failed to ensure a free and fearless environment for the nomination of candidates. Now if they display laxity in enforcing the RPO, the election which lacks competition will be even more questionable.