THE High Court on July 17 issued a rule that has asked the government to explain why the chief adviser Muhammad Yunus should not be declared a ‘national reformer’, considering his contribution to state reforms. The court has issued the rule on a public interest litigation writ petition filed in May by a journalist, who is a resident of Belkuchi in Sirajganj. The petitioner’s lawyer has argued that Yunus has led several reform initiatives and instituted 11 reforms commissions on state governance. The petition appears ludicrous, even in the changed political context beginning in August 2024, as almost nothing has so far been reformed. The reforms process has just begun and whatever reforms that may be effected appear would lie with the next political government. The commissions have made their recommendations, but the government is busy dealing with recommendations of only six commissions whilst the other five commissions appear to have already been pushed to the fringe. The writ petition largely appears to have been symptomatic of political sycophancy, which mostly seems to be devoid of any good intention. Hidden agendas have almost always been behind such moves. The court is, rather, expected not to entertain such writ petitions.

The court has also asked the authorities why they should not be directed to publish an official list of the students who were killed in the July-August uprising and declare them ‘national martyrs.’ The court has named secretaries to the public administration ministry, the law, justice and parliamentary affairs ministry, the information and broadcasting ministry, the finance ministry and the cabinet as respondents. The problem with the writ petition is that whilst any people who have laid down their lives for freedom and democracy, including in the events of the 1952 language movement, the 1969 mass uprising, the 1971 liberation war and other such events, are recognised as ‘martyrs,’ a fresh initiative to separately afford recognition of ‘martyrs’ to the students who laid down their lives in the July-August uprising in their fight against the authoritarian rule of the deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina that brought about the political changeover for the country’s betterment would belittle the others who died for freedom and democracy down the ages. The deputy attorney general and an assistant attorney general who have appeared for the state have not opposed the rule. The court is, rather, expected to ask the government to make, at the earliest, a comprehensive list of the people who died for the greater good and make the list public in their veritable recognition.

The court should not, therefore, entertain ludicrous writ petitions and, in the case at hand, ask the government to enlist all who laid down their lives in the uprising.