Ensuring Social Justice by Interpretation of the Statute of Bangladesh: An Analysis of Case Laws

Ensuring Social Justice by Interpretation of the Statute of Bangladesh: An Analysis of Case Laws

*Md. Rakibul Hasan., Nandita Ghose., Jorifa Yesmin

Department of Law, Khwaja Yunus Ali University, Bangladesh

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000573

Received: 15 September 2025; Accepted: 22 September 2025; Published: 18 October 2025

ABSTRACT

Social Justice is now an international concern. Bangladesh has experienced a renewed emphasis on the interpretation of statutes to ensure social justice for all. This study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of social justice and the role of statutory interpretation in facilitating access to justice within our legal system by examining various judgments rendered by the Supreme Court. In the Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association (BNWLA) vs. Bangladesh and Others[1] case, for instance, the court heard some of the horrifying stories of sexual abuse and repression experienced by women in their places of employment, schools, and other government and nongovernmental organizations. By using the phrase “Loco parentis” [2]and interpreting various Constitutional provisions, the Court establishes some rules that must be adhered to in all workplaces and educational institutions until relevant legislation is passed. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the potential and efficacy of interpreting statutes to promote access to social justice and to offer some recommendations and suggestions for the full success of creating efficient, nondiscriminatory, and simple access to justice for all members of society, whether they are men or women, literate or illiterate, adults or children, and members of the elite or lower classes.

Keywords: Interpretation of statutes, Constitutional interpretation, Social justice, Case laws

INTRODUCTION

Every statute has a specific legislative purpose to ensure social justice. The purpose is reflected by the implementation of the provisions of the statute. The texts set the framework within which courts are engaged in the elaboration of that purpose. Courts could be creative in elaborating purpose when it needs. It is a well-established rule that when interpreting a statute, the Court must accept the interpretation that promotes the remedy and defeats the evil. [3]Interpretation of the statute should preserve both legislative supremacy and judicial creativity. Sometimes, the Appellate Court interestingly applied interpretation to provide a remedy to the victim. It is generally established that when reading a statute, the Court must accept the interpretation that promotes the remedy and overcomes the evil[4]. The appellant did not demonstrate direct provocation or concepts of Mens Reus that fall under the area of preventing suicide. The Appellate Court determined that the High Court Division (HCD) had committed a legal error in defining the incident as a suicide. The Appellate Division (AD) merely dismissed the rule since the evidence on the file, prima facie, did not reveal any offense under the particular provisions of the applicable statute. Therefore, case laws are highly important in the legal arena. Sometimes there are some matters that are not covered by the statute, but they need to be specified to ensure justice for society, and the judge must figure it out. In Judgments of some notable reported cases, it seems that the Court has done so. This study provides an overview of how well the Supreme Court of Bangladesh interprets legislation provisions to guarantee social justice.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The interpretation of statutes is a widely discussed topic in legal literature, but most existing works focus on general principles and foreign perspectives, with little emphasis on Bangladeshi case laws. Books by authors such as Abdullah Al Faruque[5], P. St. J. Langan[6], A.K. Yog[7], Shaukat Mahmood[8], A.P. Chatterjee[9], R.D. Srivastava[10], Mahmudul Islam[11], Md. Sultan Uddin Prodhan[12], and Farhana Reza[13], along with related articles[14], explain interpretive rules and concepts but largely lack analysis of judgments from Bangladesh’s apex court. While some discuss statutory principles in depth and others highlight challenges of interpreting laws drafted in Bangla, none thoroughly address the development of Bangladeshi jurisprudence through case laws, leaving a significant research gap that this study seeks to fill.

METHODOLOGY

A few rulings from the Supreme Court of Bangladesh served as the foundation for the study. The primary objective of the study is to present a summary of case laws. Adoption of the judgments’ points of view is crucial to the research’s best possible outcome. A variety of methods for studies are employed to give the study its full shape:

1. Collecting and analyzing a few significant rulings from the Supreme Court of Bangladesh on various topics.
2. Examining the rulings in light of the respective statutory provisions’ literal application.
3. Assessing the point of view of the Supreme Court regarding those judgments and the impacts of the judgments to ensure social justice.

Objectives

This study’s long-term objective is to examine the rulings in a few significant judgments of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and assess how well they will work to maintain social fairness in our society. This is not the definitive or exhaustive study of case laws. It merely attempts to identify the major components of the issues and –

1. to investigate the general concept of the interpretation of a
2. to examine the interpretation given by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh to provide justice to the legitimate party.
3. to determine how the rulings of the Supreme Court build legal jurisprudence and guarantee social fairness.

 Definition Of Social Justice

Fairness for everyone and the idea that everyone should have equal rights and access to justice are known as social justice. Everyone deserves equal opportunities to enjoy economic, political and social rights. The path that directs our human interactions toward universal justice is known as social justice.[15] Social justice also requires every one of us to work with others to build and improve our communities as tools for both social and individual development.[16]

These principles are used to define social justice:

• Equity
• Human rights
• Access
• Participation

As a result, we can define social justice as ensuring that everyone has access to justice and equal rights.

Definition Of The Interpretation Of The Statute

Interpretation and construction are the methods by which the Court tries to ascertain legislative intent from the authoritative forms in which it is expressed.[17] Examining the legislature’s intent through the text, the topic, the impact and ramifications, or the spirit and rationale of the legislation is the most equitable and logical way to interpret a statute.[18] The art of interpretation is determining a statute’s real meaning by giving its words their normal, natural meaning. It involves determining the actual meaning of the words used in a statute. A number of principles have developed from the courts’ ongoing practice that the courts should not interpret the legislation in an arbitrary manner. We refer to these guidelines as “Rules of interpretation.” Statute interpretation is the process of analyzing and implementing laws. Unless there is a clear command or a major omission that makes it impossible, a court’s interpretation of a statute should strive to accomplish its practical purpose.

Rules Of Interpretation

There are 3 types of primary rules of interpretation: literal rules, mischief rules and golden rules of interpretation. The literal rule is the main and most significant rule of interpretation. The Sussex Peerage Case establishes the rule.[19] According to this rule, the intent of the Parliament that passed a statute should be taken into consideration when interpreting it. The Court explains the statute’s words in their natural and usual sense if they are clear and explicit in and of themselves. One of the key principles of legislative interpretation is the mischief rule. English courts have historically applied it. In Heydon’s case, the rule was initially established,[20] a decision of the Court of Exchequer from the 16th century. Using the mischief rule, the Court decides which aspects of the law were left out but were intended to be fixed by Parliament when it passed the bill. Gray v. Pearson was the next development.[21] The “golden rule” is the name given to the regulation that was implemented in that instance. If doing so prevents absurdity, a court may elaborate a statute by deviating from the words’ literal meaning. The grammatical and common sense of the words should be followed when interpreting statutes, unless doing so would make them nonsensical, repugnant, or inconsistent with the rest of the statute. In that case, the rule applies; the words’ common sense and grammar may be altered to avoid absurdity and inconsistency, but not farther. The golden rule gave the courts the ability to interpret the entire statute, giving its words their normal meaning, unless doing so resulted in an absurdity, inconsistency, or inconvenience. The golden rule of interpretation is used to decide many cases. These include Abdul Gafur vs Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs[22], Anwar Hossain vs. the State[23], BLAST and Others vs. Bangladesh and Others case[24], BNWLA vs. Bangladesh and Others case[25], Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque and another vs. Bangladesh[26].

A Chart Of Some Leading Cases Of Bangladesh

Some leading cases have been analyzed here, such as tort-related cases, political cases, social cases and other cases. It is necessary to look upon the facts, legal points and final decisions of the Court. An analysis of these cases revealed how the judgments of those cases made revolutionary changes in ensuring social justice.

Jurisprudence Developed In Tort-Related Aspects

In the BAT case^[27], The respondent, Shamsun Nahar, was a permanent employee of the defendant company. Soon after joining, she faced sexual harassment from two senior employees, including office head Mr. Ezaz Ahmed Choudhury and Mr. Golam Farook Khan. Despite reporting the harassment, no action was taken; instead, she was terminated by the head of HR, Mr. Quazi Mohammad Shahed. She filed a lawsuit claiming damages in tort for harassment and bullying at her workplace. The defendant company argued that it bore no liability, that the suit was barred under Section 9 of the CPC, and that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, seeking rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Trial Court and High Court Division rejected the application, finding that a cause of action was properly stated. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the company owed a duty of care to prevent workplace harassment, and that both individuals and the organization could be held liable. The company’s leave petition was dismissed.

Surprisingly, vicarious liability was made applicable for tort-related aspects here. The judgment reinforced that, employees, especially women, cannot be treated unfairly or dismissed without following due process. It upheld job security and legal safeguards for female workers in Bangladesh. The judgement strengthens gender justice. However, it leaves an instance of ensuring social justice. For this reason, it is now a leading tort related case that has made a difference in these aspects.

In the CCB Foundation case^[28], the high court division received the petitioner’s writ petition. The Bangladesh Railway and WASA authorities abandoned the 16-inch exposed shaft, into which a 4-year-old boy fell while playing on the Shahjahanpur Railway Colony playground. Without taking effective action to save young people right away, the respondent authority sent down cameras through the shaft as part of the rescue operation to monitor the boy’s condition. The respondents finally gave up on the public rescue effort of the aforementioned young people and fled the scene of the incident after the aforementioned camera show went down for ten to twelve hours. The entire country was startled and frustrated when a group of five young volunteers, using a homemade gadget, quickly removed the deceased child’s body from the pipe after the authorities had declared that there was nothing in it.

This is a case of Constitutional Tort. The judges addressed a number of significant factors in rendering their decision, including the following:

• The issue of whether the petitioner possessed locus standi arose. With reference to a few judgments where criteria were created as to what qualified a person as “any person aggrieved” under Article 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, the judges responded positively to this question. Support groups made up of victims of social, political, and human rights violations are a perfect fit for the CCB foundation, a nonprofit and benevolent organization that aims to provide legal aid.
• Despite spending much money on new equipment, the civil defense authority is careless and has not purchased a single high-tech camera to save lives in any holes or pipes. Both the civil defense department and the fire department denied any knowledge of such situations, but this denial did not absolve them of their responsibilities to the public.
• Two key tortuous concepts were used to demonstrate the Railway Authority’s negligence. “The thing speaks for itself” is what “Res Ipsa Loquitur” means. This theory was used in this instance in the sense that the boy’s fall into the pipe could not have been caused by anything other than negligence. Despite acknowledging wrongdoing, the Railway Authority attempted to shift responsibility to the contractors. This exact strategy, however, was unsuccessful when the railway authority was held accountable by the court via the vicarious liability doctrine.
• • The issue of whether any public authority may be the target of a compensation lawsuit emerges. The Court noted that Article 146 of the Bangladeshi Constitution does not distinguish between sovereign and non-sovereign activities; therefore, the Constitution does not prohibit a claim for compensation against any public entity.
• The court noted that in cases where fundamental rights are violated, the high court division is free to determine the appropriate amount of compensation on the basis of the specific facts of each case. The court ordered a compensation of BDT 20 lakh, of which 10 lakhs would be paid by the Bangladesh Railway and 10 lakhs by the Bangladesh Fire Service and Civil Defense.

The proper Civil Courts and Tribunals may be the initial venue for a private tort law complaint. However, Article 44 and Article 102(1) of the Constitution work together to apply constitutional torts. A writ petition seeking compensation can be filed in the nation’s Constitutional Court, which holds the state accountable when the statutory authority is held accountable for violating the constitutional rights outlined in part III of the Constitution. Once more, however, a distinction between constitutional tort and public law compensation must be drawn; nevertheless, for the purposes of this article’s relevancy and conciseness, this topic can be skipped. The High Court Division conducted constitutional interpretation in this case. The case held the State accountable for neglect in enforcing child welfare laws. It pushed government institutions to follow statutory and constitutional obligations.

Jurisprudence Developed In Political Aspects

The Farida Akter case[29] of a civil petition for leave to appeal emerged from a writ petition contesting the constitutionality of sections 3 and 8 of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment Act), which was published in the Bangladesh Gazette. The writ petition amended, among other things, Article 65(3) of the Constitution and added paragraph 23 to the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, which purports to reserve 45 seats in the Parliament exclusively for women to be elected on the basis of the principles established by the Parliament. Another civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a writ petition that alleged that Act No. 30 of 2004, “Jatiya Sangsad (Sangrakkhito Mohila Asosan) Nirbachan Ain, 2004,” was unconstitutional and violated the petitioners’ fundamental rights. The Court found that-

• The amendment or substitution of Article 65(3) does not conflict with the Constitution’s preamble, basic structure, or Article 150, nor does it violate Article 28(4), since the Constitution allows special provisions for women. The reservation of 45 women’s seats in Parliament is a temporary measure, and the petitioners’ rights remain unaffected. In practice, however, the ruling party has used its dominance to secure all the reserved women’s seats.
• The validity of the contested act since it aligns with Article 65(3) and does not violate the Constitution or any law. The act ensures women’s election to 45 reserved parliamentary seats through proportional representation and a single transferable vote, thereby fulfilling the amendment’s purpose and promoting democracy, according to Farida Akter and others vs. Bangladesh and Others (2006).[30]

Jurisprudence Developed In Social Aspects

In the Anarul Huq case[31], she was expelled from the appellant’s home after Ranjina Begum married him, and the appellant wanted a dowry from her that she was unable to provide. Following a discussion about the issue, Ranjina was returned to the appellant’s home on the basis of the chairperson’s recommendation. After a few days, the victim’s father received words from the locals that the victim’s body was resting near the railroad tracks. The informant filed a written complaint with the magistrate, claiming that he attempted to file a formal complaint with the police but was intimidated by the accused, who failed to file the report. The appellant and others have been wrongfully accused of assaulting the victim and killing her for a downry, according to the defense argument made clear by the cross-examination trend.

After taking into account the postmortem report and the witnesses’ substantial testimony, the High Court Division concluded as follows:

• The dowry case was not demonstrably proven by the prosecution. As a result, the case of murder was proven under Section 302 of The Penal Code, 1860, not Section 11(ka) of The Nari-o-Shishu Nirjaton Daman Ain 2000.
• The sentence should be changed from death under Section 11(ka) of The Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Ain, 2000, to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Code.

According to Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860, the accused appellant was found guilty and given a life sentence of hard imprisonment. The Court gave a different interpretation of The Nari-o-Shishu Nirjaton Daman Ain 2000 in this case.

In the Sohrab-uz-zaman case [32], in summary, Golam Rabbani, brother of the deceased Nurunnahar, reported marital discord between her and her husband. Though the death certificate cited hypoxic brain damage from drug addiction and cardiac arrest, with the physician attributing it to an amitriptyline injection, an FIR was filed alleging violation of Section 9Ka of the Nari-o-Shishu Nirjaton Daman Ain, 2000. The investigating officer filed a charge sheet, and the tribunal framed charges against the appellant. The appellant sought relief under Section 561A CrPC, but the High Court Division rejected it, leading to this leave appeal. The appeal questions whether the HCD erred in expanding the interpretation of “modesty” under Section 9Ka, as allegations indicated the deceased suffered from a troubled marriage marked by emotional abuse and humiliation.

The Court found that-

• The precise statements that allegedly prompted the victim to take her own life were not mentioned in the FIR, police report, or any other prosecution documents. Nothing in the documents on file relates to the appellant’s phone conversational language, which would have incited the deceased to take too many sleeping pills and end their own life.
• The term “modesty” should not be construed in relation to the specific victim of the crime but rather as a quality shared by all female humans. It is a quality that a woman possesses because of her sex. It is also explained in the case of the State of Punjab vs. Major Sing.^[33]. According to the Court, a woman’s sex is what defines her modesty.
• The Court provided clarification on the meaning of “modesty,” which pertains to femininity and includes sex. This femininity or a similar attribute is attacked or insulted. The main focus of the case is the accused’s guilty intent.

The appeal was granted, the ruling of high court division and order were overturned, and the case was annulled in light of the facts and circumstances.

In the BNWLA case [34], a group of female attorneys who support the rights of women and children filed a writ petition against the government, calling for immediate action to stop the sexual harassment of women in the workplace or at school. Numerous incidents of sexual harassment in both workplaces and educational institutions were brought to light by the petition. At the time the petition was filed, there were no laws in Bangladesh that protected women from being abused by men in high-ranking positions in the company or in educational institutions. The BNWLA asked the court to mandate that the government enact laws that would prohibit sexual harassment and protect women’s rights. The Court cited a number of fundamental clauses, including Articles 19(1), 10, 26, 29, 31, and 32 of the Bangladeshi Constitution. The Court stated the following goals of the judiciary in this case:

• To guarantee that everyone can live in a secular manner according to the law.
• To encourage respect for and realization of human rights within the appropriate bounds of the judicial role; and
• To apply the law equitably to individuals and between individuals and the government.

When women experience gender-specific violence, including sexual harassment at work or in schools, it can significantly affect their equality in the workplace. The court identifies sexual abuse as a global issue by stating the case Micari vs mann^[35] using the term “Loco parentis”^[36].

In addition to affecting or nullifying the observance, enjoyment, and exercise of the rights and freedoms granted to women by the Constitution, the Court recognized that the sexual harassment experienced by women at work or school violates several provisions of the Constitution, including Article 26, which guarantees that all citizens are protected equally under the law. The Court ruled that women must not experience sexual harassment at work or school to exercise these rights. On the basis of the international conventions that Bangladesh has ratified, the Court examined its obligation to ensure that women can enjoy the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, even in the absence of relevant domestic legislation. The Court noted that protection from sexual harassment and the ability to educate and employ with dignity are generally recognized basic human rights.

Until the government passes the required legislation, the Court’s guidelines are regarded as law. Definitions of sexual harassment and actions that academic institutions and workplaces should take were included in the guidelines. Another instance of constitutional interpretation is this one.

In the BLAST case[37], Ain-O-Salish Kendra, Shommilito Shamajik Andolon, and a number of other people contested the misuse of police authority to place the accused in remand, or police custody, under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to make an arrest without a warrant under Section 54 of the same code. Along with allegations of torture, brutal treatment, and death in jail, the petitioners specifically pointed to recent incidents of gross abuse of power, including the death of a young student called Rubel in detention after arrest under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The petitioners contend that Sections 54 and 167 of the Code are ambiguous and permit the arbitrary use of authority and that law enforcement organizations frequently misuse the authority conferred by these provisions. The petitioners argued that the Court should put in place safeguards to stop or limit police abuse of power and arbitrary actions by magistrates, which are violations of citizens’ fundamental rights to equal protection under the law, life and liberty, and freedom from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and punishment, as guaranteed by Articles 32, 27, 31, 33, and 35 of the Bangladeshi Constitution.

Sections 54 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, are incompatible with constitutionally granted freedoms and protections, the High Court said in its ruling after first issuing a rule Nisi. Along with the Police Act of 1861, the Penal Code of 1860, and the Evidence Act of 1872, the Court established a thorough set of recommendations about the necessary amendments to both parts of the Code and mandated that these be implemented within six months. Additionally, it established a set of 15 rules for using the arrest and remand powers:

• No police officer may detain someone in accordance with Section 3 of the Special Powers Act of 1974 by making an arrest under Section 54.
• If the individual is arrested or present at the time of the arrest request, a police officer must reveal their identities and display their identity card.
• Until a specific register is needed, a record of the reasons for the arrest as well as other details should be kept in a separate register.
• If the arrested person has any injuries, the responsible officer must note the cause and transport him or her to the closest government clinic or hospital.
• Within three hours of being taken to the police station, the arrested individual must be given the reasons for their detention.
• Within an hour after taking the person to the police station, the family members should be notified by phone or messenger if the individual is not taken into custody from their home or place of employment.
• The individual in question must be permitted to meet with their closest family members or counsel with any lawyer of their choice.
• Under Section 167 (1) of the Code, the police officer must provide a forwarding letter explaining why the investigation could not be finished in twenty-four hours and why he or she believes the information and accusation are well-founded when bringing the detained person before the magistrate under Section 61 of the Code.
• After reading the forwarding letter, if the magistrate is satisfied that the information and accusation are accurate and that the case diary contains enough materials to hold the person in jail, the magistrate will issue an order of detention; if not, the person will be released.
• If someone is discharged for the abovementioned reasons, the magistrate will take action against the offending officer under Section 220 of the Penal Code, 1860, in accordance with Section 190(1)(c) of the Code.
• When a magistrate orders someone to be detained, the officer will question the accused in a jail room until a room is built with a glass wall or grille on one side that the lawyer or family can see.
• It is advised that justifications be included in every application to detain an accused person for questioning.
• The magistrate must abide by the guidelines established in the ruling when approving detention in police custody.
• If someone dies while in custody, the investigating officer, the jailor, or the police officer making the arrest under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, must notify the closest magistrate in accordance with these guidelines.
• In accordance with the suggestions, the magistrate looks into the death of everyone detained by the police or incarcerated.

The aforementioned rules were found by researchers in relation to the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and Articles 27, 31, 32, 33, and 35 of the Constitution of Bangladesh. The social justice system and the provisions for custody and remand for any individual in Bangladesh are altered as a result of these directions.

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

There are some mentionable findings of the study in the following

• Although not mentioned in the plaint of the BAT case, there is a discussion initiated by the judges about tort. The Court makes the decision by acknowledging the vicarious liability of the company.
• The complainant has accused the company of failing to address the bullying and sexual harassment she has endured at the hands of its staff.
• In the BAT case, for such wrongdoing, a person who is liable for both tort and harm may be sued.
• There are some distinctions between the public and private law of Tort.
• In the CCB foundation case, the claim for compensation against any public authority is not barred by the Constitution. Among the parameters of the relevant ordinance, the city corporation has independent corporate status and character; these are not government departments.
• In the Anarul Huq case, although the prosecution claimed that justice blamed dowry, the court surprisingly made a sentence for only murder and not under Nari-o-Shishu Nirjaton Daman Ain, 2000.
• In the Sohorab-uz-Zaman case, the precise remarks that are said to have prompted the victim to commit suicide are not mentioned in the FIR, police report, or any other prosecution documents. Nothing in the documents on file relates to the appellant’s phone conversational language, which would have incited the deceased to take too many sleeping pills and end their own life.
• In the BNWLA case, a picture of controlling women’s discrimination is sketched out in different aspects.
• In the BLAST case, the Court gives some specific recommendations related to the arrest and remand of a person.

SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

After the cases are analyzed, some suggestions and recommendations are proposed here for consideration to ensure social justice in Bangladesh.

• Remedies through Tort must be specific and the same for all.
• Every workplace for women should be free of sexual harassment.
• Owing to their duty to care for women, private or public organizations are liable for torts and damage for wrongdoing. They must also ensure that harassment by women is prevented.
• The negligence of any civil defense system should not be allowed.
• The amount of compensation against any public authority should be specified or included in any act of the state.
• The members of reserved seats of the parliament should not face discrimination regarding rights, duties and other facilities with the members elected from the general seats.
• The sentence should be altered to imprisonment for life instead of death.
• In deciding matters related to the instigation of suicide, the Court should be more careful.
• All persons should be able to live secularly under the rule of law.
• The observance and attainment of human rights should be promoted within proper limits of judicial function.
• The recommendations given by the Court relating arrest and remand in the BLAST case should be applicable by statutory provisions. Proper observance is needed to implement the method and guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The same term might have multiple meanings according to judges. Depending on the context in which a word is used, its meaning can change. Statutory interpretation is helpful in these kinds of situations because it allows people to make their own decisions to guarantee social fairness for all. Even though the Court cannot alter the law, it can interpret its provisions in different ways, which allows it to support the advancement of social justice. It permits Parliament to enact laws, which are subsequently applied by the Court. One governing element in the legal system has always been the evaluation of a decision’s effects. Courts that adamantly state that they could make the same decisions even if the sky fell and that they are totally unconcerned with the results simply indicate that they do not think the outcomes will be extremely detrimental. They would be moving closer to dismantling our legal system if they truly meant what they claimed and followed through on their actions. Laws should be read in a way that stays true to their essential meaning to obtain the best results. The voice of social justice should be guaranteed when the Apex Court interprets laws. Ensuring social justice is the constitutional mandate that must be guaranteed. Researchers may conclude this study in a way that urges the implementation of the changes and developments of jurisprudence to ensure social justice in different aspects introduced by the Apex Court of Bangladesh. The Court has the duty to reflect the main objectives of the statute in the given judgment in interpreting that statute or relating provisions. The Supreme Court may make some directions or provide recommendations to law enforcing authorities for a developed jurisprudence in Bangladesh and upholding the justice and rights of the peoples of the country. These cases are the very few examples in which the apex court of Bangladesh made some suggestions or recommendations or brought into knowledge of any special terms by which social justice can be ensured. Therefore, this is definitely an enormous development brought by these cases.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Our highest gratefulness goes to almighty Allah. It is our pleasure and privilege acknowledging ourselves to everyone whose benevolence, trust, desire, kindness, aspiration, love, and confidence meaningfully have an effect on our life. This research is to be dedicated to all of our honorable teachers whose place is next to our parents in my life. Specifically, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to Professor Dr. Sayeeda Anju, Department of Law, Rajshahi University. We are grateful to our colleagues at the Department of Law, Khwaja Yunus Ali University. Acknowledging a specific work needs to be focused on those particular figures whose direct or indirect contributions have remained indispensable behind the successful completion of that work.

REFERENCES

Books

1. (n.d.). Jurisprudence (11th ed.).
2. Yog, A. K. (2010). Interpretation of statutes. Modern Law Publication.
3. Chatterjee, A. P. (1977). Interpretation of statutes. Eastern Law House.
4. Srivastava, R. D. (n.d.). Interpretation of statutes and legislation. Central Law Publications.
5. Islam, M. (2009). Interpretation of statutes and documents. Mullick Brothers.
6. Prodhan, M. S. U. (n.d.). Rules of interpretation of statutes and General Clauses Act, 1897. Barendra Publications.
7. Brinda, N. S. (2007). Interpretation of statutes (12th ed.). Lexis Nexis.
8. Sarathi, V. P. (n.d.). Interpretation of statutes (5th ed.). Eastern Book Company.

Cases

1. British American Tobacco Bangladesh Company Ltd. v. Begum Shamsun Nahar, 66 DLR (AD) 80 (2014).
2. Children’s Charity Bangladesh Foundation (CCB Foundation) v. Bangladesh and others, 70 DLR 491 (HCD 2018).
3. Farida Akter v. Bangladesh, 11 BLC (AD) 156.
4. Anarul Huq v. State, 67 DLR 172 (2015).
5. APM Sohrab-uz-zaman v. State represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka, 68 DLR (AD) 331 (2016).
6. Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association (BNWLA) v. Bangladesh and others, 14 BLC 694 (2009).
7. BLAST and others v. Bangladesh and others, 55 DLR 363 (2003).
8. State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63.
9. Micari v. Mann, 481 N.Y.S.2d 967 (Sup. Ct. 1984).
10. Ahmed Hussain case, 44 DLR (AD) 109.
11. Anwar Hossain v. The State, 55 DLR 643 (2003).
12. BLAST and others v. Bangladesh and others, 57 DLR 11.

FOOTNOTE

[1] Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association (BNWLA) vs Bangladesh and Others (2009) (HCD)14 BLC 694

[2] The Legal responsibilities of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of the parents.

[3] Justice A K Yog, Modern Law Publications, New Delhi, Allahabad (2010) pp.84-85

[4] Ibid

[5] Dr. Abdullah Al Faruque & M Jashim Ali Chowdhury New Dimension of Law: Analysis of Selected Laws of Bangladesh, Higher Education Quality Enhancement Project (HEQEP), CP-3156, Faculty of Law, University of Chittagong.

[6] P. St. J. Langan; Maxwell on The Interpretation of statutes, 12th addition, Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur (2009).

[7] Justice A. K. Yog, Interpretation of Statutes, Modern Law Publication, New Delhi, Allahabad (2010).

[8] Shaukat Mahmood & Nadeem Shaukat; Principles of Interpretation of Statutes, Legal Research Centre, Noor Villa, Arya Nagar, Poonch Road, Lahore-54500 (Pakistan)

[9] A.P. Chatterjee, Interpretation of Statutes, Eastern Law House, Calcutta, 1977.

[10] R.D. Srivastava; Interpretation of Statutes and Legislation, Central Law Publications.

[11] Mahmudul Islam, Interpretation of Statutes and Documents, Mullick Brothers, 42 Bangla Bazar Dhaka 1100, Bangladesh (2009).

[12] Md. Sultan Uddin Prodhan; Rules of Interpretation of Statutes and General Clauses Act 1897, Barendra Publications, Rajshahi.

[13] Farhana Reza; Interpretation of Statutes, Hira Publication, Dhaka (2013).

[14] Abu Naser Md Wahid, Compliance and Non-compliance with Judicial Orders in Bangladesh: An Analysis Based on Two Leading environmental Cases, Rajshahi University Journal.

[15] https://journalofcmsd.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Sustainable-Development-Goals-and-Social-Justice-in-Kenya

[16] https://logossmith.blogspot.com/2020/09/moral-dilemma-i.html

[17] Salmond, Jurisprudence, 11^th Edition, P.152.

[18] Blackstone, Commentaries on the laws of England, Vol. 1, P. 59.

[19] Sussex Peerage Case [1844] 11 Clark and Finnelly 85, 8 ER 1034.

[20] Heydon ‘s case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7.

[21] (1857) 6 HLCas. 61; 261J Ch. 473; 5 WR 454; 10 ER 1216.

[22] Abdul Gafur vs Secretary of Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2 MLR HCD 326 or 17 BLD HCD 561.

[23] Anwar Hossain vs. The State (2003) 55 DLR 643

[24] BLAST and Others vs. Bangladesh and Others (2005) 57 DLR, 11

[25] Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association (BNWLA) Vs. Bangladesh and Others

[26] 49 DLR (AD) 1

[27] British American Tobacco (BAT) Bangladesh Company Ltd. Vs. Begum Shamsun Nahar 2014 (AD) 66 DLR  80

[28]Children’s Charity Bangladesh Foundation (CCB Foundation) vs. Bangladesh and others (2018) (HCD) 70 DLR 491

[29] Farida Akter vs Bangladesh 11 BLC (AD) 156

[30] Ibid

[31] Anarul Huq vs State 67 DLR (2015) 172

[32] Dr. APM Sohrab-uz-zaman Vs State represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka 68 (2016) DLR 331 (AD)

[33] State of Punjab vs. Major Sing 1967 AIR SC 63

[34] Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association (BNWLA) Vs. Bangladesh and Others (2009) 14 BLC 694

[35] 481 N.Y S. 2d 967 (Sup, ct. 1984)

[36] Legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of the parent.

[37] BLAST and others vs. Bangladesh and others (2003) 55 DLR 363