Status Of Legislation Contradict To Fundamental Principles Of State Policy: Bangladesh Perspectives

S. M. Hayat Mahmud, Assistant Professor, Law Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna, Bangladesh

Tawsif Anik, Editor-in-Chief, Law and Society Students’ Journal (LSSJ), ISSN (Print): 2959-6289 & LL.M., Law Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna, Bangladesh

ABSTRACT

In Kudrat-E-Elahi Panir v. Bangladesh, the vital question was whether the legislature could enact laws violating the Fundamental Principles of State Policy. But without answering this controversial question, the judiciary traditionally showed its unlikeliness to enforce social, economic and cultural rights aggressively. Where several justiciability tests such as supremacy of the constitution, welfare doctrine, complete justice principle and basic structure doctrine have already been established, the judiciary manifested its passivity. Even as an interpreter of the Constitution, it interpreted imperfectly that misled or overrode the general principles of interpretation. But the Indian, Irish, and South African judicial systems reacted to preclude enacting legislation against the social, economic and cultural rights considering internal or external legal and political aid. It should be noted that the article 7 (2) granted supremacy to "This Constitution," which collectively implies whatever is written in the Constitution, which certainly includes socio-economic rights and article 8 (2) imposed direction that the state shall follow the FPSP while adopting legislation. Arguments may be made for and against the proposition that Article 8(2) solely binds the judicial system, not the executive or the legislature. Here, this study will show the obligation of the legislature under article 8(2) that not to enact laws violating the fundamental principles of state policy and the consequences and potential remedies if the legislature enacts laws violating the Fundamental Principles of State Policy.