HC issues rule questioning legality of Village Court Act

The High Court has issued a rule asking why the Village Court Act, 2006, which grants authority to exercise judicial powers through union parishad chairman and members, should not be declared null and void.

A High Court bench comprising Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Fatema Anwar passed the order today (23 February) after hearing a writ petition challenging the legality of the law.

The court directed the law secretary, the local government secretary and other concerned respondents to submit their replies to the rule within four weeks.

Advocate Ishrat Hasan argued in favour of the writ before the court.

Earlier, on 15 February, she filed the writ petition before the High Court questioning the constitutional validity of the Village Court Act, 2006. The petition sought the annulment of the law, describing it as unconstitutional.

According to the petition, empowering politically affiliated elected representatives, such as union parishad chairman and members, to conduct judicial proceedings in criminal and civil matters violates Article 22 of the Constitution, which ensures the separation of the judiciary from the executive.

It argues that the arrangement undermines the fundamental principles of judicial independence and fair trial.

Citing Article 35(3) of the Constitution, the petition states that every citizen has the right to be tried by an independent and impartial court.

However, village courts lack trained judges, do not fully apply the Evidence Act, 1872 and procedural laws, and restrict the participation of lawyers, thereby compromising constitutional safeguards.

The writ also contends that a geographically separate justice mechanism infringes upon citizens' right to equality before the law and equal protection of law as guaranteed under Articles 27 and 31 of the Constitution.

Referring to Articles 7, 22, 27, 31, 33, 35, 109 and 116A of the Constitution, the petitioner sought a rule declaring the Village Court Act, 2006, unconstitutional.