However, the court allowed the government to appeal against the HC's 15-point directive passed on April 7.

The Appellate Division yesterday did not allow a government appeal seeking stay of the directives.

The HC directive was aimed at ensuring human rights of a person under arrest or detention or on remand. It observed that some of the provisions of Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) pertaining to arrest on suspicion and Section 167 dealing with remand were not consistent with the fundamental rights. It asked the government to amend the relevant sections of the CrPC within six months from the date of the ruling.

The HC ruling had also made it mandatory for a police officer to produce a person before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of their arrest.

The writ on illegal detention was filed by the Bangladesh Legal Aid Services Trust following the murder of Rubel, a university student, in police custody in 1998.

The government sought permission to appeal against the High Court verdict on May 11.

It argued that the process of remand as embedded in the sections concerned were not inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.

It also contended that there was no need to amend the laws as there were provisions to check misuse of the sections.

The government attorney also argued that according to the constitution, the High Court could not direct the government to amend or introduce any law.

Arguing against the government appeal, Dr Kamal Hossain yesterday said police oppression on the innocent would rise if the High Court's 15-point directive was stayed.

He said people felt relieved because of the High Court verdict against illegal detention. He believed that the High Court verdict would help check abuse of power by police.

Dr Kamal noted that sections 54 and 167 were introduced during the British rule in the 19th century when there was no such thing as constitution.

When the constitution was framed after independence, the state sought to protect human rights. But those sections remained unchanged and human rights violations are taking place through misuse of these sections.

Dr Kamal was assisted by Barrister Tanjib-ul-Alam.

Earlier, Law Minister Moudud Ahmed told The Daily Star that the government is not opposed to the essence of the HC directive but challenged part of the court order whether it could ask the government to amend a law, that too within a fixed timeframe.

"Our question is whether a court can give a deadline to parliament to complete a legislation, the prime task of parliament, or whether it amounts to dictating terms to the legislative body. Many may argue that it may amount to an infringement on the sovereignty of parliament," he said.

But the HC in its verdict on the anti-human rights laws said, "Our answer is that this court has such power under the article 102 of the constitution. As we have found that some of the existing provisions of sections 54 and 167 of the code are inconsistent with the fundamental rights of the citizens, this court cannot only recommend, it can even issue directives."

Referring to another case relating to separation of the judiciary filed in 1997, the HC said: "The Appellate Division had also issued directives upon the government to ensure separation of the judiciary from the executive, and the Appellate Division modified the drafts and made those drafts part of its order."