First, the case against Sheikh Hasina was not initially filed under the emergency provisions by the investigation officer (IO), but it was subsequently placed in that category on the direction of an additional secretary of the home ministry. This raises the disquieting point of the case being unduly influenced by a government functionary. One may recall here that the government decided to place all the cases under Emergency Provisions through an order issued on March 21, which was later rescinded on April 8. Clearly the case against Hasina was filed much later. Was it done to deny her bail? That's a highly embarrassing question, which should not have been allowed to arise, in the first place.

Secondly, the court has observed that filing of the FIR is not by itself a proof of an accused person's guilt. A person is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty, and the onus of proving so is on the prosecution. Thirdly, the HC's general observation that rules are not being applied properly is another reflection of how legal procedures have been short-circuited in this case. It raises the very important issue of maintaining neutrality and objectivity of governmental actions, particularly in politically sensitive matters.

The observations made by the HC hint at the law being interpreted or applied not in the best of its spirit in the case against an eminent politician, to say the least. The government's credibility will be jolted if it fails to go by the norms of law and set standards and procedures in putting an accused on trial.

The questions that have been pushed to the fore by the HC ruling need to be examined in all their ramifications. We believe the government should carefully weigh the significant observations made by the court on the case, which include some important legal interpretations. This it should do for its own good.