Issue of warrant in civil cases
Shabbir Parvez Oak Hill, VA, USA
One item that has struck me as odd, with regard to the news of warrants being issued against the prominent personalities in Dhaka, is the whole idea of warrants being issued in civil cases. I do not know if there are other countries where this happens, but there is something very illogical about this process. By definition, penalty in "civil" cases (defamation, etc) should be of a monetary in nature. Therefore, possibility of jail sentences should not even appear. (Of course, some hundred years ago, England used to have debtors' prison. Thankfully, that practice is looked back the same way that slavery is). Looking at the case at hand, here we have one person alleging and accusing others of defamation. Now, this allegation has not been proven in the court of law. And yet, warrants come out for their arrest. In criminal cases, the accused is often locked up even before his case is tried; but that happens because in the opinion of a judge the accused is considered a menace/threat to the society at large, and is, therefore, incarcerated. There is a logic to putting accused criminals behind the bar before the trial. However, I absolutely see no basis as to why the same should happen to people accused in civil cases. What further intrigues me is the fact that it has not occurred to the lawmakers and law practitioners in Bangladesh that there is something very irrational and illogical about this practice! Perhaps it is time to take a second look at this portion of the law.
|
|
