149/72, has enumerated different situations in which a person shall be deemed to be a citizen of Bangladesh but it has not discriminated among its citizen[s] no matter in which way they have become citizens of this country. So the petitioner is on the same footing as any other citizen. His citizenship, therefore, clings to him. He could voluntarily renounce it or he could be deprived of it if he had incurred any disqualification. Though he filed the application, he did not even pursue it. He filed an affidavit affirming his allegiance to Bangladesh in 1972. The petitioner having not acquired the citizenship of any other country, his citizenship of Bangladesh which he acquired long before cannot evaporate and he continues to be a citizen of this country.” 10 5. The effect of the 2003 decision was limited to the ten petitioners. Subsequently, on 18 May 2008, in Md. Sadaqat Khan, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) reaffirmed that all members the Urdu-speaking community were nationals of Bangladesh in accordance with its laws and directed the Election Commission to “enroll the petitioners and other Urdu-speaking people who want to be enrolled in the electoral rolls and accordingly, give them National Identity Card without any further delay.” 11 In reflecting on the situation of the Urdu-speaking community, the Court also noted that: “[The] [q]uestion of citizenship of Urdu-speaking has got another aspect, which is very important from the constitutional perspective. Miseries and sufferings of such people due to statelessness were time to time reported in the national media, electronic and print. Besides, the reasons mentioned in the letter of the Election Commission, they are constantly denied the constitutional rights to job, education, accommodation, health and a decent life like other citizens of the country. By keeping the question of citizenship unresolved on wrong assumption over the decades, this nation has not gained anything rather was deprived of the contribution they could have made in the nation building. The sooner the Urdu-speaking people are brought to the mainstream of the nation is the better.” 12 10 11 12 Mukhtar Ahmed v. Govt. of Bangladesh et al., (1982) 34 DLR (HCD) 29, as cited in Abid Khan, above footnote 7. See also Professor Golam Azam v. Govt. of Bangladesh et al., (1993) 45 DLR 423, MH Rahman, J., as cited in M.M. Mohsin, The Law of Citizenship and Passport of Bangladesh (New Warsi Book Corp., Dhaka 2002) 24: “Even a diehard pro-Pakistani, born in this country, is entitled to be a citizen of Bangladesh if he fulfils the requirements under Article 2 and is not disqualified under clause (i) of Article 2B.”; id. at 25, Latifur Rahman, J.: “[...][T]he onus of proving that the respondent has lost his citizenship from the country of his permanent residence is on the appellant who seeks to deprive the respondent of his rights as a citizen.”. Md. Sadaqat Khan (Fakku) and others v. Chief Election Commissioner, Bangladesh Election Commission, Writ Petition No. 10129 of 2007, 18 May 2008 (Bangl), available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4a7c0c352.html. See also Daily Star, Stranded Biharis now Bangladesh citizens, 19 May 2008, available at http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/newsdetails.php?nid=37206; BBC, Citizenship for Bihari refugees, 19 May 2008, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7407757.stm. Sadaqat Khan, above footnote 11, at 8. 3