As a result of the unfortunate stay, the voters will be denied of the right to know the antecedents and financial backgrounds of the candidates running in the coming parliamentary elections. The voters' right to information about candidates is important because it is part of their fundamental right.

The background of the unfortunate incident is as follows. The High Court Division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court, in a seminal judgment delivered on May 24, 2005, directed the Election Commission (EC) to collect, with the nomination papers of each candidate in parliamentary elections, the following information in the form of an affidavit to be sworn by each of them: (a) academic qualifications with certificates; (b) any pending criminal accusations; (c) any record of past criminal cases and the results; (d) the candidate's profession/occupation; (e) sources of the candidate's income; (f) description of the role he/she played in fulfilling his/her commitment to the people, if the candidate was a parliament member before; (g) description of assets and liabilities of the candidate and his/her dependents; and (h) particulars and amounts of loans taken from banks and financial institutions personally, jointly or by a dependent, or bank loans taken by companies from banks where the candidate is the chairman/managing director/director.

The Court further directed the EC to disseminate the information thus collected by using the media.

On April 6, 2006, a three-judge bench of the Appellate Division, comprising of the Chief Justice and two other justices, granted leave to appeal filed by one Mr. Abu Safa against the above judgment.

There was something unusual about the appeal. Mr. Safa was not a party to the original writ -- he was a third party. In addition, the original petitioners and their lawyers were not present at the hearing -- they were not informed of it.

In granting the leave to appeal, the bench of the Appellate Division refused to stay the High Court judgment. Instead, the Court directed that the matter be heard in the regular bench on a priority basis. Accordingly, during the last regular session of the Court, the case appeared in the cause list everyday bearing the serial number 186 and case number CA5706. In a normal situation, it would take a few months before the case would come for hearing.

In his leave to appeal petition, Mr. Safa stated that because of poverty he could not pursue his education beyond class eight. However, by dint of his own effort, he became a self-educated person, and he is involved with many schools and colleges in his area in Sandwip. He is a dedicated politician and a social worker.

Although he came from a poor family, he made his fortune, and he was now a philanthropist in the locality. Mr. Safa also claimed that he was a very popular, credible and important leader in his area, and that he was a potential candidate in the coming parliamentary elections.

He further contended that disclosure of his educational qualifications by means of an affidavit would be discriminatory against him. In addition, he argued that the High Court judgment was against the basic structure of democracy -- whatever that means -- and it violated Article 66 of the Constitution. Thus, he filed the appeal in public interest.

After learning of the appeal the original petitioners, through their advocate-on-record, Syed Mahbubur Rahman, filed caveat and made the necessary preparations for the hearing before the full bench of the Appellate Division.

Representatives of the petitioners were present at the Court, in case the matter came up for hearing, until the last day of its last regular session. But none from Mr. Safa's side brought the case to the Court's attention for emergency hearing.

After the Court went on winter recess the Chamber Judge, Justice Md. Joynul Abedin, suddenly stayed the High Court judgment on December 19 in a rather unusual manner. In the petition for the stay, Mr. Safa repeated the same untrue claims about his background and popularity.

He also claimed that he had already bought the nomination paper for the forthcoming parliamentary elections to be held on January 22. As a result of the petition, Justice Abedin directed the EC to accept nomination papers without affidavits. In unusual and uncharacteristic haste, the EC implemented the Court's directives on the same day.

The decision by Justice Md. Joynul Abedin involving an issue of monumental public interest begs many serious questions.

First, while a bench of three of his senior colleagues, including the Chief Justice, refused to stay the High Court judgment, on what basis did Justice Abedin see it fit to reverse their decision?

Second, as far as we are aware, when a caveat is filed, the lawful means is to ensure the presence of all interested parties at the proceeding and hear their arguments. Why did Justice Abedin not do this?

Third, instead of raising the issue during the regular session of the Court, Mr. Safa's lawyers petitioned for the stay four days after the Court went on winter recess. Why did not Justice Abedin raise any question about this suspicious move?

Fourth, even though Mr. Safa raised objections to disclosing his educational qualifications, the Court stayed the entire judgment.

Justice Abedin could easily stay the disclosure of educational qualifications while allowing the implementation of the rest of the judgment. In addition, instead of ordering a blanket stay, the Court could prevent the disclosure of only Mr. Safa's antecedents.

Finally, Justice Abedin must be aware that candidates in parliamentary elections are required to submit similar types of sensitive financial information, although not their criminal records, under Article 44AA(2) of The Representation of the People Order, 1972 and the High Court judgment only ensured their mandatory disclosures by using the media.

Why did the Honourable Court become an unwitting party to the unholy alliance against people's right to know, thereby allowing criminal elements to run in the coming parliamentary elections?

Justice Md. Joynul Abedin, unfortunately, was perhaps misled by the cooked-up information submitted by Mr. Safa's lawyers. Almost all the information about Mr. Safa in the original leave to appeal petition, as well as in the petition for the stay, is totally false.

In addition, pertinent information about Mr. Safa's background was concealed. Based on newspaper stories and other sources, Mr. Safa is an ordinary soldier expatriated from Pakistan. Although he used the address of his ancestral home in Sandwip, he does not live there. In fact, he was not there for the last five years.

He had already sold his share of his ancestral homestead in Kalapania village -- not Kalapahia, as written in the petition -- and he did not even attend his mother's funeral.

The claims that he is a philanthropist, a social worker, a political activist, and that he is a patron of local educational institutions, are utterly baseless. In fact, according to local people, Mr. Safa is a cheat and an unsavoury character.

According to his first wife, children, and neighbours, he married more than once without spousal permission, and he then abandoned them. His wife and children do not even know where he lives, even though their speculation is that he works as a security guard somewhere in Dhaka.

That Mr. Safa is a popular political leader in his area, and that he is a contestant in the next parliamentary election is utterly false. His claim that he bought the nomination paper for the coming election is, according to newspaper reports, a total fabrication. In fact, his family and neighbors laughed at the news.

Furthermore, although he filed the appeal in public interest, Mr Safa does not have any track record whatsoever of public service. In addition, if he was a well-known and popular leader in his locality, the voters would know his background, including his educational background, and disclosure of his educational qualifications would not in anyway jeopardize his position. It is thus clear that an interested quarter has used Mr. Safa to achieve its evil intentions.

Unfortunately, the highest Court of the land has become a victim of its fraudulent scheme. We fervently hope that, in the interest of ensuring public confidence in itself, the Court, after due investigations, would take drastic action against the perpetrators of this blatant fraud.

The action of the Court has already unnecessarily harmed public interest. It is well known that our politics has become a safe haven for owners of black money and muscle power -- that is, the criminal elements -- which is a serious threat to our democracy.

This situation must be urgently redressed in order to keep our democratic system functioning. In addition, clean and efficient governance is a democratic right of every citizen, the achievement of which would require keeping the criminal elements out of the electoral process.

The historic judgment of the High Court on disclosures could contribute significantly to this end. Mr. Safa's claim that the High Court judgment violates Article 66 of the Constitution, which specifies disqualifications of MP candidates, is also totally without any merit. The judgment only ensures people's right to know the antecedents of candidates; it does not impose any new disqualification.

In other words, the High Court judgment does not specify a minimum level of educational qualification for MP candidates. However, even if it did, it would not violate the Constitution. Article 66(6) authorises the imposition by law of additional disqualifications for MP candidates. Thus, bank defaulters are disqualified from becoming MPs, even though such restrictions are not in the Constitution.

Furthermore, the argument that the High Court judgment violates the basic structure of democracy is utterly ill conceived. We are not sure what this term means -- online legal dictionary does not contain such a concept.

However, democracy is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution, and fair elections based on adult franchise are basic features of democracy. An essential condition for fair and meaningful elections is that voters should be able to make informed choices.

Given the above, we fervently hope that the Appellate Division will immediately vacate the stay on the High Court judgment so that it can take effect in the coming parliamentary elections. We further hope that the Court will dismiss the appeal as it was granted on the basis of false submissions. These actions will ensure justice and protect public interest.

Ensuring justice is important because, as the old adage goes, where justice ends, anarchy begins. These will also prevent our democracy from becoming a total monocracy. If the Court intervenes, suo moto, it will be a unique display of the judiciary's commitment to the protection of the public interest.

Badiul Alam Majumdar is Secretary, Shujan (Citizens for Good Governance).