Right to form an association not flowing from Article 38 of the Constitution—(a) Whether such right can be protected there under, (b) whether a statutory right under P.O. 27 of 1973 can be protected under Article 102 of the Constitution and (c) whether such statutory right can be amended by the legislature?
Held, (a) No.—as the appellants right does not flow from his right to form an association he cannot claim any right or protection under Article 38.
The right under Article 38 implies that several individuals having a community of interest can join together to form a voluntary association for furtherance of a common lawful object.
Article 38 cannot be invoked for support or substance or fulfillment of every object of an association.
(a) Yes, — whatever right he (appellant) has as a member of the society Red (Crescent) has been given under P.O. 26 of 1973 and he can legitimately claim protections under Article 102 of the Constitution for enforcement of his statutory right.
(b) Yes, — But he (appellant) cannot claim that his right under the statute cannot be modified, altered or affected by an amendment of P.O. 26 of 1973, validity passed by the legislature.
Whatever right the appellant has under P.O. 26 of 1973 can be modified, regulated or taken away by an amendment of that Order— There is no dispute as to the principle that the legislature can, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, take away a vested right by an express enactment.
Md. Asaduzzaman Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and others; 1O BLD (AD) 267.

The Society is under a statutory obligation to admit persons to any grade in membership of the Society provided those persons seeking membership comply with by the terms and conditions for enrolment or for renewal of membership. Asaduzzaman vs Bangladesh 42 DLR (AD) 144.

Unlike other associations the Society cannot be dissolved except by law made for the purpose. Asaduzzaman vs Bangladesh 42 DLR (AD) 144.

There is no provision in the President's Order No. 26 of 1973 entitling the President of the Red Crescent Society to extend the period by one year of its ad-hoc committee and of its Chairman by two years, instead Article 9(b)(l) specifically provides that if for any reasons the general election could not be held the President shall appoint an ad-hoc committee or Managing Board to exercise the powers and perform functions for such committee or Board for a period of three months and Article 9(3) provides that an Ad-hoc committee or Managing Board shall hold the general election within three months from the date of appointment of the Ad-hoc Committee or Board and hence the impugned judgment of the High Court Division calls for no interference. AFM Obaidur Rahman, Secretary General of Bangladesh Red Crescent Society, Attorney and others vs Md Asgar Ali and others 9 BLC (AD) 201.

Distinguishing features of the Red Crescent Society from other voluntary society and associations
There are certain features which distinguish the Red Crescent Society from other voluntary societies or associations—The society is a body corporate and the definitions of the term ‘Corporation’ or a ‘body corporate’ are:
It is clear that though the society is an association of persons it is an association sui generis—Though membership to the society is open to all the citizens of Bangladesh, who comply with the terms and conditions laid down in the rules framed under the order, no one has the right to form a similar society.
Unlike other associations the Society cannot be dissolved except by law made for the purpose (Article 24 of P.O. 26 of 1973).
No valid analogy can be drawn between a District Board and the Society, because the National Society being a component of the lnter9ational League of Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is and must necessarily by an independent, impartial, voluntary, autonomous association of members.
The analogy or similarly between the District Board and Red Crescent Society is no doubt striking, but in both the cases the rights of the members flow from a statute and not from the fundamental right of association that citizens enjoy on their own.
Md. Asaduzzanzan Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and others; 10BLD (AD) 267.