Every litigation must eventually reach a conclusion, and criminal trials are no exception. In Bangladesh, the judicial process for death penalty cases typically concludes after the Appellate Division (AD) upholds a conviction and a review petition under Article 105 of the Constitution is dismissed. However, legal experts argue that the current system lacks a mechanism to address instances where a party was denied a fair hearing or where an undisclosed conflict of interest created an apprehension of bias after all ordinary judicial avenues have been exhausted.

The concept of a ‘curative petition’ seeks to reconcile the finality of judgments with the need to prevent grave injustice. Rooted in the principle of ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’ (an act of the court should prejudice no one), this doctrine allows for exceptional reconsideration of final judgments. While not formally recognized in Bangladesh, proponents suggest that Article 104 of the Constitution, which empowers the AD to make orders necessary for ‘complete justice,’ could potentially serve as a foundation for such a remedy.

International precedents, such as the Indian Supreme Court case Rupa Ashok Hurra v Ashok Hurra (2002), established that curative jurisdiction is not a secondary appeal but an exceptional safeguard against failures in the integrity of the judicial process. Unlike presidential clemency, which addresses the punishment itself, a curative petition would specifically address procedural failures such as the denial of a legally required hearing or demonstrable judicial bias. As the legal community debates this issue, the challenge remains to balance the necessity of finality in litigation with the imperative to ensure that judicial procedures remain transparent and impartial.

বাংলাদেশ সময়: ২২:১৯:৪৫   ১৭ বার পঠিত   #Appellate Division  #Bangladesh Judiciary  #Constitutional Law  #Curative Petition  #Human Rights  #Judicial Integrity  #Legal Reform