The Supreme Court, in the full text of its judgement on Jamaat-e-Islami’s registration, observed that the Representation of the People Order (RPO) contains no provision barring a political party’s registration based on the role of its leaders during the Liberation War.
The SC made the observation in the 51-page full text of its verdict, released recently.
“The 25 writ petitioners, who challenged the legality of Jamaat’s registration before the High Court, have tendered objection to the effect that due to the heinous role of its leaders during the Liberation War, it should not have been given registration to do politics in Bangladesh,” the verdict said.
“Their grievance appears to be sentimental rather than legal, as the RPO does not incorporate any provision to refuse registration to any political party for the role of its leaders during the Liberation War,” it added.
On June 1 last year, a four-member Appellate Division bench headed by then chief justice Syed Refaat Ahmed scrapped a 2013 High Court verdict that had declared Jamaat’s registration illegal.
Following an appeal filed by Jamaat, the apex court also directed the Election Commission to resolve the party’s pending issues, including its registration.
The EC later restored Jamaat’s registration and returned “Daripalla (scale)” as its election symbol, Advocate Mohammad Shishir Manir, a lawyer for the party, told The Daily Star.
Jamaat lost the right to contest parliamentary elections as a party after the High Court declared its registration with EC illegal on August 1, 2013, following a writ petition.
The petition was filed on January 25, 2009, by Syed Rezaul Haque Chandpuri, secretary general of the Bangladesh Tariqat Federation, along with 24 others, seeking a declaration that Jamaat’s registration was illegal.
The EC later cancelled Jamaat’s registration in October 2018 ahead of the 11th national election.
Jamaat subsequently filed an appeal with the SC challenging the HC verdict. The apex court began hearing the appeal on December 3, 2024.
No lawyer presented arguments on behalf of the petitioners during the Appellate Division hearing on this issue.
