M Jashim Ali Chowdhury
Published in SCLS Law Review, Vol 4 No 3 (September 2021) pp 1-7
Abstract
The use of parliamentary debate in the judicial interpretation of statutes is discouraged (The Exclusionary Rule). It is done for a purpose. The judicial consideration of parliament’s internal proceedings might invite unnecessary tension between the two constitutional organs. Moreover, the parliament’s intention behind a law might not be discoverable from one or more of its members’ speeches. Considering the speech of the Ministers or sponsors of a Bill might also be dangerous. In such cases, the court might risk prioritizing the government’s intention over that of the legislature.
However, a famous British case called Pepper v Hart argued the opposite. It held that ministerial or sponsor statements in parliament may be considered in certain circumstances to understand the intent of the legislature. The case is being endorsed in other commonwealth jurisdictions like Australia, Canada and India. This short piece considers the position of the Bangladesh Supreme Court and finds that there is a serious judicial (un)mindfulness about the rationales behind the Exclusionary Rule.
.jpg)
