The High Court on Monday asked the government to explain in four weeks its failure to formulate guidelines for exercising the president鈥檚 prerogative power to pardon convicts.
A bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury issued the rule after hearing a public interest litigation filed by Supreme Court lawyer Ishrat Hasan.
The court also asked the authorities to explain why specific guidelines should not be framed for the application of presidential clemency, as outlined in Article 49 of the constitution.
The article states, 鈥楾he President shall have power to grant pardons, reprieves, and respites, and to remit, suspend, or commute any sentence passed by any court, tribunal, or other authority.鈥�
The rule was issued to the cabinet secretary, the law secretary, the home secretary, the parliament secretary, and the Public Division secretary at the president鈥檚 office, requiring them to submit their responses.
During the hearing, Ishrat Hasan argued that presidential clemency had been misused by successive governments to favor politically aligned convicts and there was no effective mechanism in place to prevent such abuse.
She pointed out that judiciaries in countries like the United States and India had played significant roles in ensuring that presidential pardons remained within the scope of judicial review.
She urged the Bangladesh judiciary to take similar steps to prevent arbitrary pardons to ensure that clemency is only granted to deserving individuals who seek genuine reform.
She also cited the High Court鈥檚 landmark verdict in the 2012 Sarwar Kamal case, where the court ruled that presidential clemency must adhere to principles of rationality, fairness, and non-discrimination.
Sarwar Kamal, a fugitive convict, had received a presidential pardon while on the run.
The High Court later quashed the clemency, ruling that fugitives cannot receive presidential mercy without first surrendering to the court.
Any arbitrary, malicious, or unreasonable use of presidential clemency violates the rule of law and constitutes an abuse of power, the court observed.
Ishrat Hasan called on the judiciary to establish clear legal guidelines to prevent future misuse of presidential pardons.
