Authored By: Shahrin Alam
Daffodil International University
Case Name: Kudrat-E-Elahi Panir Vs Bangladesh (1992)
Citation:44 DLR (AD) 319
Court Name and Bench:
Appellate Division,Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Judges: Chief Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed, Justice M.H. Rahman, Justice A.T.M. Afzal, Justice Mustafa Kamal, Justice Latifur Rahman
Bench Type: Constitutional Bench (5 Judges) in civil appeals
Date of Judgement :
30 July 1992
Parties Involved:
Petitioner / Appellant
Kudrat-E-Elahi Panir, a citizen of Bangladesh.
Filed the case challenging the Government’s failure to establish local government institutions.
Argued that Articles 59 and 60 of the Constitution impose a constitutional duty on the State to create elected local bodies.
Respondent / Defendant
The Government of Bangladesh.
Defended the case by arguing that Articles 59 and 60 are part of Part II – Fundamental Principles of State Policy.
Claimed these provisions are directive in nature and cannot be legally enforced by the court.
Fact of the Case:
After independence, the Constitution of Bangladesh (1972) included Articles 59 and 60 in Part II, which provided for the establishment of elected local government institutions with powers to perform administrative and financial functions.
Despite this constitutional provision, the Government of Bangladesh did not establish fully functional local government bodies as envisaged by the Constitution.
Kudrat-E-Elahi Panir, a concerned citizen, filed a case arguing that the Government was constitutionally obliged to set up local self-government institutions in accordance with Articles 59 and 60.
The Government, in its defense, argued that Articles 59 and 60 fall under the Fundamental Principles of State Policy, which are directive in nature and therefore not enforceable by any court.
The matter was heard by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh with a five-member constitutional bench, headed by Chief Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed.
On 30 July 1992, the Court delivered its judgment, clarifying the status of Articles 59 and 60 and the nature of Fundamental Principles of State Policy.
Issues Raised:
Whether the Government of Bangladesh is constitutionally required to establish elected local government institutions under Articles 59 and 60.
Whether provisions in Part II – Fundamental Principles of State Policy are enforceable by the courts.
Whether a citizen (appellant) can seek judicial intervention to compel the Government to implement directive principles.
Whether the Government’s failure to establish local self government bodies violates the Constitution or any enforceable legal rights.
Arguments of the Parties:
Petitioner / Appellant (Kudrat-E-Elahi Panir):Argued that the Government was constitutionally obliged to establish elected local government institutions under Articles 59 and 60.
Claimed that citizens have a right to demand implementation of these constitutional provisions.
Emphasized that the failure of the Government to form local bodies undermines democratic governance and constitutional intent.
Referred to Articles 59 & 60, Constitution of Bangladesh (1972) as legal basis.
Respondent / Defendant (Government of Bangladesh):
Argued that Articles 59 and 60 are part of Part II – Fundamental Principles of State Policy, which are directive in nature.
Claimed these provisions are not enforceable by courts and do not create legally binding rights for citizens.
Stressed that judicial intervention cannot compel the executive to implement policy-based provisions.
Supported their argument by citing the nature of directive principles in constitutional law and prior precedents regarding non-justiciable rights.
Judgment / Final Decision:
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh delivered the judgment on 30 July 1992.
The Court dismissed the petition filed by Kudrat-E-Elahi Panir.
It held that Articles 59 and 60 of the Constitution are part of the Fundamental Principles of State Policy and are directive in nature, meaning they are not enforceable by the courts.
No specific orders or directions were issued to compel the Government to implement the provisions.
Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi:
The Court reasoned that directive principles guide the State in policy-making but do not create justiciable rights for citizens.
Citizens cannot compel the Government to implement these principles through judicial intervention.
The legal principle established: Part II provisions of the Constitution are directive in nature and not enforceable by courts.
The Court relied on constitutional interpretation and precedents regarding non-justiciable rights.
Conclusion / Observations:
The case clarified the scope of Fundamental Principles of State Policy in Bangladesh.
It confirmed that while directive principles are important for governance, they are not legally enforceable in courts.
Significance: The case serves as a key reference for understanding the limits of judicial enforceability of Part II provisions.
Objective observation: The judgment maintains balance between citizen expectations and the directive nature of constitutional policies.
