Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)
Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order [PO 149 of 1972] | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Article 2 |
A person who is deemed to be a citizen of Bangladesh under Article 2 is not
required to take any oath of allegiance unless he is elected or appointed
to any office mentioned in the Third Schedule of the Constitution: per MH
Rahman J.
|
Bangladesh vs Professor Golam Azam | 46 DLR (AD) 192 |
Article 2 |
The proviso to this Article uses the expression "permanent resident" to denote those who had domicile of origin in Bangladesh and then uses the expression "residence" to denote shall be final-Appeal allowed. (Minority view). Government of Bangladesh vs Messrs Ispahani 40 DLR (AD) 116. |
Government of Bangladesh vs Messrs Ispahani | 40 DLR (AD) 116 |
Article 2 |
The birth right of anyone to be a citizen of any particular country could not be brushed aside in the absence of any positive contrary intention manifested so as to deprive him of the right to be a citizen of a country where he was born. Bangladesh vs Rehana Kamal and others 56 DLR (AD) 1. |
Bangladesh vs Rehana Kamal and others | 56 DLR (AD) 1 |
Article 2(ii) |
"Residence" or "permanent residence" both expressions have been used in PO No. 149 of 1972-In Article 2(ii) it is the permanent resident that was contemplated in contradistinction to persons whose residence was in UK-Respondent severed all connections on 28-2-1972 for possessing a Pakistan passport. Government of Bangladesh vs Messers lspahani 40 DLR (AD) |
Government of Bangladesh vs Messers lspahani | 40 DLR (AD) |
Article 2 and 2B(1) |
Even a diehard pro-Pakistani, born in this country, is entitled to be a citizen of Bangladesh if he fulfils the requirements under Article 2 and is not disqualified under clause (I) of Article 2B. Bangladesh vs Professor Golam Azam 46 DLR (AD) 192. |
Bangladesh vs Professor Golam Azam | 46 DLR (AD) 192 |
Articles 2B and 3 |
The question of allegiance is important in considering disqualification under Article 2B. In this case allegiance, as such, is irrelevant as the impugned notification is made under Article 3. Bangladesh vs Professor Golam Azam 46 DLR (AD) 192. |
Bangladesh vs Professor Golam Azam | 46 DLR (AD) 192 |
Articles 2B and 3 |
Dual nationality is provided for in clause 2 of Article 2B. Article 2(B)
has provided 'a citizen of Bangladesh shall not merely by reason of being a
citizen or acquiring citizenship of a state specified in or under clause
(2) cease to be a citizen of Bangladesh." Clause 2 runs as follows:
|
Government of Bangladesh vs Messrs Jspahani | 40 DLR (AD) 116 |
Article 2 |
Admittedly the plaintiff and his family members including his son were permanent residents of Bangladesh on the 26th day of March, 1971. But the question before us as to whether the plaintiff himself continues to be so resident and is not otherwise disqualified for being a citizen by a under any law for the time being in force. By conferring the citizenship the respondent is deemed to be a citizen of Bangladesh and has continued to be a permanent resident as a citizen of Bangladesh. The conferment of citizenship to the resident under Article 2 of the Order impliedly declared that the plaintiff- respondent qualified himself as a citizen of Bangladesh. The plaintiffs staying in Pakistan, without any formation of any opinion that his stay was prejudicial to the interest of Bangladesh under the circumstances should not be the consideration inasmuch as the concerned laws do not put any such disqualification to be deemed against a citizen of Bangladesh. Sena Kalayan Sangstha Vs. Mr. Nagar Mohiuddin & Ors 14 BLT (AD)-230. |
Sena Kalayan Sangstha Vs. Mr. Nagar Mohiuddin & Ors | 14 BLT (AD) 230 |
Article 2 |
Citizenship—The respondent was born in the territory now comprised in Bangladesh but l temporary absence is covered by the proviso of P.O. 149 of 1972 and the law says, “he shall be deemed to continue to be resident in Bangladesh, notwithstanding his temporary residence in a country which was at war or aged in military operations against Bangladesh.”—His assertion that he was prevented from returning to Bangladesh by the circumstances which had not been challenged—In the eye of law, therefore, he remains a resident of Bangladesh. People’s Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Haque; 2 BLD (AD) 143. |
People’s Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Haque; | 2 BLD (AD) 143 |
Articles 2 and 3 |
By conferring the citizenship the respondent is deemed to be a citizen of Bangladesh and has continued to be a permanent resident as a citizen of Bangladesh. The conferment of citizenship to the resident under Article 2 of the Order impliedly declared that the plaintiff-respondent qualified himself as a citizen of Bangladesh. The plaintiff's staying in Pakistan) without any formation of any opinion that his stay was prejudicial to the interest of Bangladesh, under the circumstances should not be the consideration, inasmuch as the concerned laws do not put any such disqualification to be deemed against a citizen of Bangladesh. The respondent being a citizen and permanent resident of Bangladesh and having been found to be deemed to be a citizen upon conferment of citizenship under the provisions of the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order, 1972, and under Article 3 thereof, the Government considering the circumstances having decided as such which shall be final and the appellants have as well failed to prove that he is otherwise disqualified under the' concerned laws including the law on abandoned properties. Sena Kalyan Sangstha vs Haji Sufi Fazal Ahmed and ors 10 BLC (AD) 198. |
Sena Kalyan Sangstha vs Haji Sufi Fazal Ahmed and ors. | 10 BLC (AD) 198 |
Article 2 |
It is clear that the respondents though filed nationality certificate and the power of attorney to show that they are citizens of Bangladesh which had not been controverted by any tangible material on record, the birth right of any one to be a citizen of any particular country could not be brushed aside in the absence of any positive contrary intention manifested so as to deprive him the right to be a citizen of a country where he was born. Bangladesh vs Mrs. Rehanan Kamal (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 2ADC 480 |
Bangladesh vs Mrs. Rehanan Kamal | 2 ADC 480 |
Section 2 |
The Family Courts Ordinance, 1985
|
Eriko Nakano, Japan =VS= Ministry of Home Affairs, Bangladesh | 12 LM (AD) 222 |
Article 3 |
Article 3 does not either specifically or by implication exclude the principle of 'hear the other side:' Per MH Rahman J. Bangladesh vs Professor Golam Azam 46 DLR (AD) 192. |
Bangladesh vs Professor Golam Azam | 46 DLR (AD) 192 |
Article 3 |
[Prof. Golam Azam, the Jamaat leader, hereinafter called the respondent,
left for Pakistan on 22 November, 1971 but he could not turn back because
of the War of Liberation, 1971. Whether Government notification dated April
18, 1973 declaring Prof. Golam Azam disqualified to be the citizen of
Bangladesh under Article 3 of the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary
Provision) Order, 1972 was of any legal effect and whether the show cause
notice dated March 23, 1992 served on him as reference has any lawful
authority. The answer is ‘No’]
|
Bangladesh Vs. Prof. Golam Azam & Ors. | 3 BLT (AD) 3 |
Citizenship and nationality |
Citizenship and nationality
|
Government of Bangladesh Vs. Mirza Skakab Ispahani, | 8 BLD (AD) 41 |