Summary of the Case: Mrs. Aruna Sen vs. Govt.

of the People’s
Republic of Bangladesh
Court: Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division)
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 407 of 1974
Decision Date: 17.09.1974
Equivalent Citation: 27 DLR (1975) 122
Judges: Dabesh Chandra Bhattacharya and Abdur Rahman Chowdhury, JJ.
Key Issue: Legality of the preventive detention of Chanchal Sen under the Special Powers Act,
1974.
Background: Chanchal Sen, son of Mrs. Aruna Sen, was detained by the Rakkhi Bahini on
March 30, 1974. Mrs. Aruna Sen filed a writ petition challenging the legality of her son's
detention, arguing that it was unlawful, politically motivated, and lacked specific and
reasonable grounds.
Core Arguments:
• Petitioner's Argument:
• The arrest and detention were arbitrary, politically motivated, and an abuse of
executive power.
• The grounds for detention were vague and unsubstantiated, violating
constitutional requirements.
• The detention violated Chanchal Sen’s fundamental rights under the
Constitution, including the right to personal liberty and protection from arbitrary
arrest.
• Respondents' Argument:
• Chanchal Sen was involved in subversive activities, justifying his detention
under the Special Powers Act, 1974.
• The detention was necessary to prevent him from engaging in activities
prejudicial to state security and public order.
• The grounds for detention were specific and provided to the detenu in
accordance with legal requirements.
Judgment:
• Legality of Preventive Detention:
• The High Court declared the detention illegal, emphasizing the lack of
substantial and reasonable grounds.
• The court found the grounds provided were vague, unsubstantiated, and did not
meet the constitutional requirements for preventive detention.
 • Judicial Review of Executive Actions:
• The judgment highlighted the judiciary's role in protecting individual freedoms
against misuse of preventive detention laws for political purposes.
• The court reinforced that preventive detention must be justified with concrete
and reasonable grounds.
• Public Law Compensation:
• The court awarded monetary compensation for the unlawful detention,
highlighting the harm caused to Chanchal Sen’s reputation and fundamental
rights.
Conclusion: The judgment underscored the judiciary's responsibility to protect individual
freedoms and prevent the misuse of preventive detention laws for political purposes. It
highlighted the need for concrete and reasonable grounds to justify any preventive detention,
ensuring adherence to constitutional guarantees.
Key Takeaways:
• The case emphasized the judiciary's proactive role in scrutinizing executive actions
under preventive detention laws.
• It established the importance of specific and reasonable grounds for preventive
detention.
• The court's decision to award compensation for unlawful detention reinforced the
principle of accountability for executive actions that violate fundamental rights.
Summary of the Case: Bilkis Akhter Hossain vs. Bangladesh and others
Court: Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division)
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 1662 of 1997
Decision Date: 07.04.1997
Equivalent Citation: 1997 17 BLD 395, 2MLR(HCD)113
Judges: Md. Mozammel Haque and Md. Hassan Ameen, JJ.
Key Issue: Legality of the preventive detention of Dr. Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain under the
Special Powers Act, 1974, and the entitlement to public law compensation for unlawful
detention.
Background: Dr. Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain, an opposition political leader and Member
of Parliament, was detained under the Special Powers Act, 1974. His wife, Bilkis Akhter
Hossain, filed a writ petition challenging the detention, claiming it was politically motivated,
lacked reasonable grounds, and violated his constitutional rights.
Core Arguments:
• Petitioner's Argument:
• The detention was politically motivated and used as a tool for political
repression.
• The grounds for detention were vague, unspecified, and lacked substantial
evidence, violating the requirements of the Special Powers Act, 1974.
• The detention contravened Dr. Hossain’s fundamental rights under the
Constitution, including the right to personal liberty.
• Respondents' Argument:
• The detention was necessary to prevent Dr. Hossain from engaging in activities
prejudicial to the security of the state and public order.
• The grounds for detention were justified based on confidential information and
the need to maintain public safety.
Judgment:
• Legality of Preventive Detention:
• The High Court declared the detention illegal, emphasizing that the grounds
provided were neither specific nor reasonable.
• The court found that the materials used to justify the detention lacked rational
basis and probative value, and thus the detention was not justified under the law.
• Judicial Review of Executive Actions:
• The judgment reinforced the judiciary's role in scrutinizing executive actions
under preventive detention laws to prevent misuse for political victimization.
 • The court emphasized that preventive detention must be justified with concrete
and reasonable grounds, and must adhere to constitutional guarantees.
• Public Law Compensation:
• The court awarded monetary compensation of Tk. 1,00,000 for the unlawful
detention and the harm caused to Dr. Hossain’s reputation and rights.
• The judgment underscored the court's authority to award compensation in
habeas corpus cases to ensure accountability for violations of fundamental
rights.
Conclusion: The judgment underscored the judiciary's responsibility to protect individual
freedoms and prevent the misuse of preventive detention laws for political purposes. It
highlighted the need for concrete and reasonable grounds to justify any preventive detention,
ensuring adherence to constitutional guarantees. The decision to award compensation for
unlawful detention reinforced the principle of accountability for executive actions that violate
fundamental rights.
Key Takeaways:
• The case emphasized the judiciary's proactive role in scrutinizing executive actions
under preventive detention laws.
• It established the importance of specific and reasonable grounds for preventive
detention.
• The court's decision to award compensation for unlawful detention reinforced the
principle of accountability for executive actions that violate fundamental rights.
Summary of the Case: Government of Bangladesh and Ors. vs. Nurul
Amin and Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of Bangladesh (Appellate Division)
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 89-93 of 2012
Decision Date: 29.05.2012
Equivalent Citation: 2016 36 BLD (AD) 125, 67 DLR(AD) (2015) 352, 4LM(AD) 2018
526, 4LNJ(AD)(2015)270
Judges: Md. Muzammel Hossain, C.J., Surendra Kumar Sinha, Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah,
Nazmun Ara Sultana, Syed Mahmud Hossain, Muhammad Imman Ali, and Md. Shamsul Huda,
JJ.
Key Issue: Legality of preventive detention and entitlement to public law compensation for
unlawful detention under the Special Powers Act, 1974.
Background: Nurul Amin and others were detained under the Special Powers Act, 1974. The
detainees' relatives filed writ petitions challenging the detentions as unlawful, politically
motivated, and without proper grounds. The High Court Division ruled in favor of the
petitioners, ordering the release of the detainees and awarding monetary compensation.
Core Arguments:
• Petitioners' Argument:
• The detentions were arbitrary and politically motivated.
• The grounds for detention were vague and not substantiated.
• The detentions violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under the
Constitution, including personal liberty and protection from arbitrary arrest.
• Respondents' Argument:
• The detentions were necessary to prevent the detainees from engaging in
activities prejudicial to the security of the state and public order.
• The grounds for detention were justified based on confidential information.
• The High Court Division did not have the authority to award monetary
compensation in writ jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution.
Judgment:
• Legality of Preventive Detention:
• The Appellate Division upheld the High Court Division’s decision to release the
detainees, confirming that the detentions were not justified as per the
requirements of the Special Powers Act, 1974.
• The grounds for detention were found to be vague and lacking in evidence, thus
violating the constitutional requirements for lawful detention.
 • Public Law Compensation:
• The Appellate Division overturned the High Court Division's award of monetary
compensation, ruling that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article
102 of the Constitution by awarding compensation without a specific provision
in the law.
• The court emphasized that compensation for unlawful detention must be
specifically claimed and proved in a civil suit, not in a writ petition.
Conclusion: The judgment reinforced the requirement for concrete and reasonable grounds for
preventive detention under the Special Powers Act, 1974, ensuring adherence to constitutional
guarantees. The decision also clarified the limitations of the High Court’s authority to award
monetary compensation in writ jurisdiction, directing such claims to be addressed through civil
suits.
Key Takeaways:
• The case affirmed the judiciary's role in scrutinizing executive actions under preventive
detention laws to prevent misuse for political purposes.
• It highlighted the need for specific and reasonable grounds for detention.
• The ruling clarified the procedural requirements for claiming compensation for
unlawful detention, emphasizing the necessity of civil suits for such claims.
Summary of the Case: Z.I. Khan Panna vs. Bangladesh and Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division)
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 7650 of 2012
Decision Date: 13.09.2015
Equivalent Citation: 2017 37 BLD 271, 1LNJ(2017)280, 7SCOB(2016)HCD 7
Judges: Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury and Md. Ashraful Kamal, JJ.
Key Issue: Constitutionality of Act No. 1 of 2003, which provided indemnity for actions taken
during 'Operation Clean Heart,' and the entitlement to public law compensation for victims of
human rights violations and custodial deaths.
Background: Z.I. Khan Panna, an advocate, filed a writ petition challenging the legality of Act
No. 1 of 2003, which granted indemnity to members of disciplined forces and public officials
for actions taken during 'Operation Clean Heart' from 16 October 2002 to 9 January 2003. The
petitioner argued that the Act was unconstitutional and violated fundamental rights guaranteed
under the Constitution.
Core Arguments:
• Petitioner's Argument:
• The Act was unconstitutional as it provided blanket indemnity for violations of
fundamental rights, including custodial deaths and torture.
• The Act was inconsistent with the rule of law and fundamental rights provisions
in the Constitution.
• The petitioner sought a declaration that the Act was void ab initio and ultra vires
the Constitution and requested the creation of a compensation fund for victims.
• Respondents' Argument:
• No specific cases were filed against personnel during 'Operation Clean Heart,'
and hence no compensation claims were justified.
• Criminal liability is a personal liability, and the government should not be held
responsible for the actions of individual members of the disciplined forces.
Judgment:
• Constitutionality of Indemnity Act:
• The High Court declared Act No. 1 of 2003 void ab initio and ultra vires the
Constitution, emphasizing that legislative actions cannot undermine
constitutional provisions related to fundamental rights.
• The court stated that blanket indemnity for actions violating fundamental rights
is contrary to the rule of law.
 • Public Law Compensation:
• The court held that victims of human rights violations during 'Operation Clean
Heart' are entitled to seek compensation through public law remedies under
Article 102 of the Constitution.
• The judgment highlighted the court's authority to award compensation for
unlawful state actions that violate fundamental rights, establishing a precedent
for public law compensation in Bangladesh.
Conclusion: The judgment reinforced the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutional
principles and fundamental rights. It rejected legislative attempts to provide blanket indemnity
for human rights violations and established the right of victims to seek compensation for such
violations through public law remedies.
Key Takeaways:
• The case reaffirmed the constitutional requirement for legislative actions to conform to
fundamental rights and the rule of law.
• It highlighted the judiciary's role in preventing legislative overreach and protecting
human rights.
• The decision underscored the importance of accountability for actions taken by state
actors and provided a legal basis for victims to seek compensation for human rights
violations.
The case is significant in the context of "Preventive Detention and Public Law Compensation
in Bangladesh" as it illustrates the judiciary's proactive role in scrutinizing legislative actions
that undermine fundamental rights and providing remedies for victims of unlawful state
actions.
Summary of the Case: Children's Charity Bangladesh Foundation vs.
Bangladesh and Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division)
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 12388 of 2014
Decision Date: 18.02.2016
Equivalent Citation: 2018 13 ALR (HCD) 45, 2018 5 CLR (HCD) 278, 70 DLR (2018) 491,
10 SCOB (2018) HCD 117
Judges: Farah Mahbub and Kazi Md. Ejarul Haque Akondo, JJ.
Key Issue: The case addresses the failure of public authorities to rescue a minor, Jihad, who
tragically died after falling into an uncovered shaft, and whether compensation should be
awarded for the negligence resulting in his death.
Background: The petition was filed by the Children's Charity Bangladesh Foundation (CCB
Foundation) in the form of public interest litigation (PIL) following the tragic death of Jihad, a
four-year-old boy who fell into an uncovered shaft in Shahjahanpur Railway Colony. The
petition sought to hold public authorities accountable for their negligence and to secure
compensation for Jihad's family.
Core Arguments:
• Petitioner's Argument:
• The authorities exhibited gross negligence in failing to rescue Jihad promptly
and effectively, leading to his death.
• The incident violated Jihad's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 31,
32, and 36 of the Constitution.
• The petitioner sought a declaration of the authorities' inaction as illegal and
demanded compensation of Taka 30,00,000 (thirty lac) for Jihad's family.
• Respondents' Argument:
• The respondents argued that they acted promptly and diligently during the
rescue operation.
• They contended that the rescue attempt was hampered by a lack of suitable
equipment and expertise for such unique incidents.
• The Fire Service and Civil Defense argued that they were not negligent and had
sought support from other agencies and volunteers.
Judgment:
• Negligence and Accountability:
• The High Court Division found that the respondents, including Bangladesh
Railway and the Fire Service, failed in their duty of care by not maintaining the
shaft and not having adequate rescue equipment.
 • The Court highlighted the failure to take necessary precautionary measures and
the abandonment of the rescue operation, which demonstrated negligence.
• Public Law Compensation:
• The Court held that the family of Jihad was entitled to compensation due to the
gross negligence of the respondents, which led to the violation of Jihad's
fundamental right to life.
• The judgment established that public law compensation can be awarded for
breaches of fundamental rights by state actors, even in the absence of explicit
statutory provisions.
Conclusion: The High Court Division's decision underscored the responsibility of public
authorities to ensure safety and maintain infrastructure to prevent such tragic incidents. The
ruling also reinforced the judiciary's role in providing remedies for violations of fundamental
rights, including awarding compensation for negligence by state actors.
Key Takeaways:
• The case reaffirms the judiciary's power to hold public authorities accountable for
negligence resulting in violations of fundamental rights.
• It highlights the importance of proper maintenance and precautionary measures by
public entities to prevent such incidents.
• The decision sets a precedent for awarding public law compensation for breaches of
fundamental rights in Bangladesh.
This case is relevant to "Preventive Detention and Public Law Compensation in Bangladesh"
as it illustrates the judiciary's approach to addressing state negligence and ensuring
accountability for violations of constitutional rights through public law remedies.