[🇧🇩] Judiciary of Bangladesh.

[Saif]

SC proposes Judicial Appointment Council for selecting new HC judges

The Supreme Court has prepared a draft ordinance incorporating the provision for constituting a Judicial Appointment Council in order to select competent candidates for their appointment as new High Court judges

www.thedailystar.net

SC proposes Judicial Appointment Council for selecting new HC judges

The Supreme Court has prepared a draft ordinance incorporating the provision for constituting a Judicial Appointment Council in order to select competent candidates for their appointment as new High Court judges.

The draft of the proposed ordinance has been sent to the judges of both the Appellate and High Court Divisions of the SC on November 14 seeking their opinions and a total of 18 written opinions have been received by the SC till November 24.

The draft ordinance is awaiting submission to the ministry of law, justice and parliamentary affairs after examining the opinions under the overall supervision of Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, a SC press release said yesterday.

Formulating a law for appointment of HC judges under the constitution is a longstanding demand from different sections of people particularly the Supreme Court Bar Association.

Article 95(1) (c) of the constitution says, "Qualifications as may be prescribed by law for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court".

The development over preparation of the draft ordinance came in line with the chief justice's announcement of a roadmap for the reforms in the judiciary.

On September 21, Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed in an address to lower court judges has announced the roadmap, saying that he would take steps for formulating a law for appointment of HC judges and for the establishment of a separate secretariat for the judiciary.

On October 27, the SC has sent a proposal to the law ministry for establishing a separate secretariat for the judiciary to make it truly independent and effectively separate it from the executive branch and bringing an end of the law ministry's control over the lower courts.

Before the proposal was sent to the law ministry, opinions of judges of both the Appellate and HC divisions were solicited.

The SC press release said in continuation of the chief justice's announcement of the roadmap, the SC administration on September 25 introduced a helpline number (+88 01316154216) to assist the litigants or service recipients so that they don't face obstacles at any section of its registry office.

A total of 723 calls regarding legal advice, case-related information and filing of complaints have been received over the helpline number.

Out of these, the callers concerned have received legal advice through 426 calls. In addition, the service recipients have received case-related information through a total of 243 calls.

Total 42 calls regarding various irregularities, negligence in work, delay in receiving services and corruption have been received and necessary legal action has been taken in response to those complaints, according to the press release.

Following the SC verdict on October 20, 2024, the Supreme Judicial Council regarding the removal of judges has been revived.

The three-member Supreme Judicial Council, headed by the Chief Justice of Bangladesh, Dr Syed Refaat Ahmed, has already started its activities.

In continuation of that, three judges of the High Court Division expressed their desire to resign from their posts through a letter addressed to the president, and their resignations were accepted on November 19, 2024.

It is to be noted that the activities of the Supreme Judicial Council are still ongoing.

Thus, various activities are ongoing under the roadmap regarding the judiciary announced by the chief justice of Bangladesh. These activities will be able to play a strong role in establishing justice in the country through the overall improvement of the judiciary and effective separation of the judiciary, the SC press release stated.​

 

[Saif]

Chief justice orders enhanced security measures for all courts

Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed has instructed relevant authorities to ensure the safety and security of all courts throughout Bangladesh, including the protection of judges, lawyers, and court clerks. The directive came on Thursday following recent disruptions in the premises of the Supreme Court

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Chief justice orders enhanced security measures for all courts
bdnews24.com
Published :
Nov 29, 2024 21:42
Updated :
Nov 29, 2024 21:42

Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed has instructed relevant authorities to ensure the safety and security of all courts throughout Bangladesh, including the protection of judges, lawyers, and court clerks.

The directive came on Thursday following recent disruptions in the premises of the Supreme Court and district courts across the country.

A letter from the High Court division highlighted that the chief justice expressed deep concern over the “unprecedented” and “unwanted” events that have taken place in these court areas.

“To uphold the rule of law, ensure justice, and preserve the dignity of the courts, the Chief Justice has instructed authorities to guarantee security at all court and tribunal premises, courtrooms, judges’ residences, and for all individuals associated with the judiciary,” it reads.

Recently, during clashes at the Chattogram court area, lawyer Saiful Islam Alif was killed when protesters attacked as Chinmoy Krishna Das Brahmachari, a spokesperson for the Sammilito Sanatani Jagaran Jote, or United Sanatan Awakening Alliance, was being escorted to prison in a sedition case.

Protesters vandalised vehicles, including motorcycles, parked on the court road.

In another incident on Wednesday, lawyers threw eggs at a High Court judge following alleged derogatory remarks about the BNP founder Ziaur Rahman.

The incident occurred during a session presided over by Justice Md Ashraful Kamal at a High Court dual bench.

This is not the first time such disruptions have occurred in court premises. Earlier, following the change of government after the mass uprising, similar incidents, including the throwing of eggs and shoes at the accused, have taken place.​

 

[Saif]

Post-uprising judiciary to protect of human rights: CJ

Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed today said the post-July revolution judiciary of Bangladesh is committed to providing the highest protection of human rights in the country

www.thedailystar.net

Post-uprising judiciary to protect of human rights: CJ

Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed today said the post-July revolution judiciary of Bangladesh is committed to providing the highest protection of human rights in the country.

He said this while holding a meeting with Spain's Ambassador to Bangladesh Gabriel Sistiaga Ochoa de Chinchetru. The Spanish ambassador made the courtesy call to the chief justice at his Supreme Court office this morning, a SC press release said.

During the meeting, Refaat reiterated his commitment to establish the rule of law in the country and assured the full cooperation of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in enhancing mutual cooperation between the two countries in modernising the judiciary and institutionalising the separation of judiciary.

The Spanish ambassador praised the various initiatives taken by the chief justice of Bangladesh in recent times to ensure the independence of the country's judiciary.

He expressed hope that the strong leadership of the current chief justice of Bangladesh will play an important role in establishing good governance and ensuring justice in the country in the coming days.

In addition, he informed Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed that his country is ready to provide all-out cooperation to Bangladesh in building a strong judiciary in the country and he expressed interest in providing the necessary technical support for the modernisation of the judiciary.​

 

[Saif]

Steps taken to safeguard judicial independence, says Chief Justice

Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed on Friday said measures have been taken to safeguard independence and integrity of the country's judicial system. He said this while addressing a programme organised by the Rajshahi University Law Alumni Association (RULAA) at the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Steps taken to safeguard judicial independence, says Chief Justice
FE REPORT
Published :
Dec 07, 2024 08:28
Updated :
Dec 07, 2024 08:28

Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed on Friday said measures have been taken to safeguard independence and integrity of the country's judicial system.

He said this while addressing a programme organised by the Rajshahi University Law Alumni Association (RULAA) at the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).

The Chief Justice further said, "As part of my steadfast commitment to institutional reforms and strengthening the independence of the judiciary, I have taken decisive steps to establish the foundations for true separation of powers. I have declared and initiated the process of creating a separate Secretariat for the Judiciary, a pivotal measure to ensure the judiciary's administrative autonomy."

He stated that he has proposed the formation of a Judicial Appointment Council to institutionalie transparency and meritocracy in the appointment process of apex court judges, as well as posting and transfer guidelines for district judiciaries, aimed at fostering consistency and fairness in judicial postings.

These proposals have been formally submitted to the government for necessary action, marking a significant step toward the complete institutional separation of the judiciary from the executive branch, he said.

He further said, "Moreover, in reinforcing the judiciary's independence from the legislative branch, we have restored and strengthened the Supreme Judicial Council following the disposal of the 16th Amendment review case. This pivotal move effectively eliminates the provision for Parliament to impeach Supreme Court judges, ensuring that the judiciary remains free from undue political influence."

"These measures collectively embody a holistic vision for safeguarding the independence and integrity of our judicial system, reflecting our firm commitment to upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law," he added. The Chief Justice attended the programme as the chief guest with Senior Advocate Badruddoza Badol in the chair.​

 

[Saif]

Writ seeks investigations into graft allegations against 51 judicial staff, including judges

A writ petition has been filed seeking investigation into allegations of graft against some 51 individuals, including judges and staff of lower courts across the country. Advocate Md Amimul Ehsan Zobair, a Supreme Court lawyer, filed the petition on Monday. The HC bench of Justice Farah Mahbub an

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Writ seeks investigations into graft allegations against 51 judicial staff, including judges
UNB
Published :
Dec 09, 2024 21:18
Updated :
Dec 09, 2024 21:18

A writ petition has been filed seeking investigation into allegations of graft against some 51 individuals, including judges and staff of lower courts across the country.

Advocate Md Amimul Ehsan Zobair, a Supreme Court lawyer, filed the petition on Monday.

The HC bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury is likely to hear the petition on Tuesday.

The Secretary of the Law Ministry, Registrar General of the Supreme Court, and the Chairman of Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) have been made respondents, UNB reports.

According to a report published in a daily newspaper, under the title 'Unbelievable wealth of 51 judges and staff’, it is said that the ACC found evidence against some judges and staff of the subordinate courts of amassing illegal wealth.

Many of them became worth several crores in taka, and owned a number of flats in the country and abroad, said the report.

The ACC, during its investigation, found primary evidence of graft against 51 people under the judicial department, with many of them also found accumulating wealth beyond known sources.

Joint secretary of the Law Ministry Bikash Kumar Saha, Kushita Woman and Child Repression Prevention tribunal Judge Sheikh Holam Mahbub, Kishoreganj Woman and Child Repression Prevention tribunal Judge Mahbubur Rahman Sarkar, Sylhet district Judge Manir Kamal, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Dhaka Metropolitan Court Tofazzal hossain, Magura Additional District Judge Mushfiqur Islam, Gazipur Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Kaisarul Islam, Narsingdi Chief Judicial Magistrate Molla Saiful Alam, Mymensingh Special Judge Farhana Ferdous, Sherpur Woman and Child Repression Prevention tribunal Judge Kamrunnahar Rumi, Dhaka Additional District Judge Shawkat hossain, Sirajganj Additional District and Session Judge Mohammad Erfan Ullah, Habiganj District Magistrate Saiful Alam Chowdhury, Dhaka Joint Metropolitan Session Judge Tasruzzaman, Tangail Chief Judicial Magistrate Mostafa Shahrier Khan were among those.

Besides, allegations of illegal wealth were found against Barguna Woman and Child Repression Prevention tribunal Judge Mashiur Rahman Khan, Cumilla Woman and Child Repression Prevention tribunal Judge Rezaul Karim Chowdhury, Rangpur District Judge Fazle Khoda Mohammad Najir, Rangamati District Judge Shahidul Islam, Jamalpur District Judge Ahsanul Haque, Dhaka Special Judge Masud Parvez, Sylhet Joint District and Session Judge Shahinur Rahman, Feni Additional District Judge Keshab Roy Chowdhury, officer of the judicial department Khurshid Alam, Atiqul Islam, Suruj Sarkar, Ali Mansur, Noman Moin Uddin, Subrat Mallik, Rakibul Islam, Harunur Rashid, Tehsin Iftekhar, Dhaka Joint Judge Nazmun Shahadat, Rangpur Senior Assistant Judge Krishna Kamal Roy, Dr. ABM Mahmudul Haque, Rustam Ali, Mamunur Rashid, Jewel Rana, Saifur Rahman Siddique, Abbas Uddin, Zinnat Zahan Jhunu, Enamul Haque Basunia, ANM Ilias, Moktadir Alam, Miltan and others.​

 

[Saif]

Political appointment of judges destroyed judiciary: Asif Nazrul

Law Adviser Asif Nazrul on Monday underscored the urgent need for sweeping reforms in Bangladesh's judiciary, mentioning that political appointments of judges have undermined its integrity. “The appointment of judges based on political loyalty in the High Court is a major factor behind the c

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Political appointment of judges destroyed judiciary: Asif Nazrul
Published :
Dec 23, 2024 17:54
Updated :
Dec 23, 2024 17:54

Law Adviser Asif Nazrul on Monday underscored the urgent need for sweeping reforms in Bangladesh's judiciary, mentioning that political appointments of judges have undermined its integrity.

“The appointment of judges based on political loyalty in the High Court is a major factor behind the collapse of Bangladesh's judiciary. No matter how sensitive or contentious the term ‘reform’ is, we have no alternative to it,” said Nazrul at a dialogue titled "Dialogue for Democratic Reconstruction on Judiciary" at the CIRDAP Auditorium.

The Centre for Governance Studies (CGS) organised the dialogue, UNB reports.

Criticising the recruitment culture, he said, “If judges are appointed based on their allegiance to political slogans like 'Jai Bangla' or 'Zindabad’, there can be no hope for justice. We need to rethink our approach and provide actionable frameworks, such as charts, for tracking progress instead of merely issuing recommendations.”

Regarding the issue of lower court independence, he said, “We often focus solely on ensuring the independence of the lower courts, which typically means their accountability to the High Court. But if the High Court itself is the most corrupt and politically loyal institution, how can we ensure judicial independence?”

To ensure greater transparency, Asif Nazrul recommended establishing an independent secretariat or Registrar General's office for the High Court. “This proposal, initiated by the Chief Justice, is under consideration, and we plan to hold consultations on its implementation,” he said.

He also emphasised the need for a ‘Permanent Prosecution Service’ to eliminate political interference in the Attorney General’s Office and the Public Prosecution Office. “Such a system was proposed during the 1/11 regime but abandoned by the Awami League. We aim to implement this within six months,” he added.

Appointment of the Chief Justice

Nazrul criticised the existing process for appointing the chief justice, which, by law, is supposed to be determined by the president. “When I asked my students if they believed the president appoints the chief justice independently or acts on the prime minister's advice, everyone said it’s the prime minister's decision,” he said.

He alleged that the presidency has been reduced to a ceremonial role, manipulated by prime ministers to serve political interests. “Presidents are either appointed from a ‘servant class’ or become subservient after assuming office. This issue must be addressed.”

Academicians, Supreme Court lawyers, former district and High Court judges, journalists, and rights activists attended the dialogue.​

 

[Saif]

Judiciary on verge of institutionalising independence

Says SC press release

www.thedailystar.net

Judiciary on verge of institutionalising independence
Says SC press release

Star File Photo.

The judiciary is on the brink of institutionalising its independence, with plans for a Judicial Appointment Council and a separate judicial secretariat, following initiatives led by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed since his appointment on August 11, as per an SC press release.

On October 27, the Supreme Court sent a proposal to the law ministry to establish a separate judicial secretariat, aiming to ensure the judiciary's independence by severing ties with the executive branch and ending the law ministry's control over lower courts. The proposal included a concept paper outlining the necessity and objectives of such a secretariat.

"The separation of the judiciary has remained elusive over the years because political parties in power never truly prioritised it," the concept paper stated.

In a subsequent move, the SC formally proposed the formation of a 10-member Judicial Appointment Council on November 28, recommending its establishment through an ordinance to oversee the recruitment of judges for the Appellate and High Court divisions.

The council would be chaired by the chief justice and include the two senior-most Appellate Division judges, the senior-most High Court Division judge, a senior subordinate court judge elevated to the High Court, the attorney general, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, a law professor nominated by the University Grants Commission, and two citizen representatives.

The proposal emphasised selecting competent candidates for judicial appointments.

Contacted, SC spokesman Muajjem Hussain said the law ministry is working on implementing the proposals.

"I hope the Judicial Appointment Council will be formed soon. Establishing the separate secretariat may take longer, as it will require appointing key officials to manage it," he added.​

 

[Saif]

Free judiciary from political influence

A separate “Law and Justice Affairs Ministry” can be established by replacing the existing “Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs” in order to better safeguard judicial independence and law officer accountability, proposed Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) yesterday.

www.thedailystar.net

Free judiciary from political influence
Proposes BLAST at discussion

A separate "Law and Justice Affairs Ministry" can be established by replacing the existing "Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs" in order to better safeguard judicial independence and law officer accountability, proposed Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) yesterday.

They also proposed the creation of a Supreme Judicial Council, composed of retired judges and impartial lawyers, to oversee judicial work and ensure it meets expected standards. A separate committee under this council would review various aspects of the judiciary.

Additionally, BLAST suggested forming a Judicial Appointment Committee within the Supreme Judicial Council to ensure transparency and impartiality in the selection of Supreme Court judges. This committee would establish clear guidelines for judge appointments based on impartiality and competence.

Further recommendations include the establishment of a "Safety Box" on court premises to allow victims to report sexual harassment by court officials anonymously. BLAST also stresses the importance of providing adequate facilities for women and children at court premises, including suitable seating, toilets, and baby feeding areas.

The draft proposal was presented at a discussion meeting titled "Draft Proposal on Judiciary Reform," held at the Arbitration and Conference Room of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).

BLAST's honorary executive director, Sara Hossain, a senior Supreme Court lawyer, said the organisation plans to finalise the proposal after receiving feedback from legal experts.

The final version will then be submitted to the Judiciary Reform Commission, which is currently led by Justice Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman, for further recommendations to the government.

At the meeting, several legal experts emphasised the need to ensure that the judiciary remains free from political influence and corruption to deliver justice impartially.

Among the key points raised were the need for an increased number of judges and the protection of the fundamental and human rights of litigants, accused individuals, and witnesses.

Experts also highlighted the importance of a convenient and hygienic court environment, including proper seating and toilet facilities.

Barrister M Sarwar Hossain, a Supreme Court lawyer, raised concerns about the political involvement of some lawyers and law officers, which he argued hindered the appointment of competent professionals. He also pointed out that some lawyers continue to resort to bribing bench officers to ensure their cases are heard properly.

"These are the realities that must be stopped to uphold the spirit of the July revolution," Hossain said.

He also proposed two significant reforms: the introduction of a "Pre-Action Protocol" and judicial activism.

The Pre-Action Protocol, which was introduced in the UK in 1995, requires a settlement discussion before filing cases related to accidents, medical negligence, and other civil matters.

According to Hossain, implementing this system in Bangladesh could reduce case backlogs by up to 80 percent.

The second proposal, judicial activism, aims to prevent false or nuisance cases by imposing fines, thereby reducing the number of cases unnecessarily brought to court.

This approach, Hossain argues, could help resolve execution cases swiftly through civil court judgments.

Several other legal experts, including SC lawyers Shameem Haider Patwary, Qazi Zahed Iqbal, Tabarak Hussain, Ayesha Akter, Hamidul Misbah, and Shah Md Babar, also spoke at the meeting, offering further suggestions for judicial reform.

The Judiciary Reform Commission, which is tasked with reviewing and recommending changes to the judiciary, has already submitted a preliminary report to Environment, Forest, and Climate Change Adviser Syeda Rizwana Hasan.

This report recommends a constitutional amendment to ensure that the senior-most judge of the Appellate Division is appointed as the chief justice, thus curbing presidential discretion in the matter.

The report also proposes the formation of a nine-member commission, led by the chief justice, for the appointment of SC judges to ensure the selection of qualified individuals.

The commission also advocates for the expansion of the Appellate Division, proposing a minimum of seven judges, up from the current five.

Further, the report calls for permanent attorney services for government cases at both the apex and district courts, independent investigation bodies in the criminal justice system, and swift and cost-effective justice for citizens.

The commission is expected to submit its final report by January 15, 2025.​

 

[Saif]

Judiciary Reform: SC mulls minimum age of 50 for HC judges, 60 for AD

The Supreme Court and the Judiciary Reform Commission have prepared separate draft ordinances, with the Supreme Court’s draft ordinance proposing 50 years as the minimum age for appointing...

www.newagebd.net

Judiciary Reform: SC mulls minimum age of 50 for HC judges, 60 for AD
M Moneruzzaman 27 December, 2024, 23:36

The Supreme Court and the Judiciary Reform Commission have prepared separate draft ordinances, with the Supreme Court’s draft ordinance proposing 50 years as the minimum age for appointing High Court judges and 60 years for Appellate Division judges.

The law ministry drafted another ordinance emphasising the formation of a Supreme Judicial Appointment Council to assist the Chief Justice in consulting with the president on appointing Supreme Court judges in a strengthened, effective and transparent manner.

The draft ordinances, aimed at ensuring transparency and meritocracy, suggest establishing two different bodies — the Judicial Appointment Council and the Supreme Court Judges’ Appointment Commission.

The Supreme Court’s draft ordinance proposes the creation of a Judicial Appointment Council to be chaired by the Chief Justice and having nine members, including two senior-most Appellate Division judges, two senior-most High Court judges (one from the lower judiciary), the Attorney General, the Supreme Court Bar Association president, a university law professor nominated by the University Grants Commission and two citizens to be elected through the process.

The council would assess candidates based on qualifications outlined in Article 95(2)(c) of the Constitution and additional criteria, such as citizenship, educational background, work experience, honesty and loyalty to the law.

Applicants below the age of 50 would be disqualified for appointment as additional High Court judges, while candidates for the Appellate Division must be minimum 60 years old.

The council would also recommend names for appointment to the Appellate Division directly.

The council would hold biannual meetings to assess pending case statistics in the High Court and Appellate Division, advise the president in writing on the need for judicial appointments.

The council would publish public notices seeking applications for Supreme Court judges, shortlist candidates and conduct oral tests.

The Judiciary Reform Commission, formed by the government, proposed a Supreme Court Judges’ Appointment Commission to be chaired by the Chief Justice with eight members, including two Appellate Division judges, two High Court judges, the Attorney General, the Supreme Court Bar Association president, a retired Chief Justice or Supreme Court judge and a Supreme Court lawyer nominated by the Bar Association president.

The commission has not proposed imposing an age limit for judges elevated to the High Court or Appellate Division, but has suggested 10 years of professional experience following the constitutional requirement and a three-year income tax return statements to be eligible for the appointment.

It said that names of the shortlisted candidates would be published on the commission’s web site to invite public feedback.

It prohibits certain members, such as High Court judges and the Attorney General, from participating in discussions related to their elevation or regularisation.

Common provisions in both the drafts suggested a two-year term for citizen or retired judge members.

A quorum of five members would be required for meetings (or three in specific cases).

The president must appoint judges within 15 days of receiving recommendations from the Chief Justice.

If further examination is needed, the president can send the recommendations back, extending the timeframe by 15 days.

The Chief Justice would determine the required number of judges for both the High Court and Appellate Division and notify the president of the need for appointments.

However, the Chief Justice would not be obligated to inform the president about the regularisation of additional High Court judges, as outlined in the commission’s ordinance.

The council would issue public notices for applications and conduct interviews while the commission would seek public opinions on shortlisted candidates through its web site for transparency.

Article 95(1) and (2) of the Constitution outlines the qualifications for Supreme Court judges, requiring Bangladeshi citizenship and at least 10 years of experience as a Supreme Court advocate.

Both the drafts adhere to this framework while adding additional layers of scrutiny to ensure merit-based appointments.

These proposals are aimed at depoliticising judicial appointments and addressing long-standing criticisms of the selection process.

Noted Supreme Court lawyer Shahdeen Malik welcomed the move to frame laws for establishing a judicial appointment council or commission.

He pointed out that the fifth amendment to the Constitution in 1978 added Article 95(2)(c), mandating qualifications for Supreme Court judges to be set by law.

However, successive governments have failed to enact such a law, allegedly to enable political appointments or nepotism.

In 2008, the military-backed caretaker government introduced an ordinance establishing a commission for the appointment of Supreme Court judges.

However, the succeeding Awami League government chose not to ratify the ordinance.

Article 95(1) of the Constitution stipulates that the Chief Justice is appointed by the president, while the other judges are appointed by the president in consultation with the Chief Justice.

Over the years, a set number of additional High Court judges has been appointed for a two-year term, drawn from Supreme Court Bar Association members, government law officers and subordinate court judges in a non-transparent manner.

The elevation of High Court judges to the Appellate Division has also made in the non-transparent way.

Shahdeen Malik said that the appointments of SC judges had often been criticised for lacking transparency.

Supreme Court Bar Association president AM Mahbub Uddin Khokon described the two draft ordinances as being at a ‘premature’ stage.

‘The association cannot comment on these drafts. Many recommendations need further discussions before finalisation,’ he told New Age.

Khokon, however, said that the proposed commission, established under Article 95 of the constitution, aims to ensure transparency in the selection of Supreme Court judges as per the long-standing demand from the association.

The Bangladesh Judicial Service Association, representing subordinate court judges, however, criticised the inclusion of the Bar Association president and a lawyer nominated by the president as members of the Judiciary Reform Commission-proposed commission for appointment.

‘Such inclusion will not only create a conflict of interest, but also increases the risk of political interferences and bias in the appointment process,’ observed its secretary general, Muhammad Mazharul Islam, in a press release.

Speaking at a discussion on December 23, law adviser Asif Nazrul said that the law ministry was set to discuss draft proposals on the Supreme Court judges’ appointment law with experts today.

He said that the Supreme Court and reform commission drafts shared a significant number of similarities with some minor differences.

The ministry prepared a comprehensive draft law after broader consultations with experts, academics, politicians and the other stakeholders, he said.

‘We aim to enact the law within a month, which will help appoint 30 to 40 Supreme Court judges, significantly improving judicial services for the decades to come,’ the law adviser said.

The law ministry’s draft ordinance refers to Article 95(1) of the Constitution, which mandates the appointment of judges by the president in consultation with the Chief Justice.

The Supreme Judicial Appointment Council envisages to have eight members, including the Chief Justice (chairperson), the most senior Appellate Division judge, two High Court judges (the senior-most and one elevated from judicial service), the Attorney General, the Supreme Court Bar Association president, a retired Appellate Division judge nominated by the chairman and a public university law professor nominated by the chairman.

The draft ordinance proposes a special provision granting the council authority to recommend any individual for appointment as a judge to the High Court Division or the Appellate Division, adhering to specified appointment procedures.

However, unlike the Supreme Court’s draft, the law ministry’s proposal does not set an age limit for Appellate Division judges.

It, however, proposes a minimum age of 45 years for High Court judges.

The president would determine the required number of judges, and the Chief Justice would convene council meetings upon receiving a request for consultation.

Meetings could also be held without informing the president for regulating the tenure of additional High Court judges.

The council’s recommendations for judicial appointments would require a quorum, with the number of members present varying by appointment category: at least five members for additional High Court judges, three members for High Court judges and two members for Appellate Division judges.

Certain council members, including the two High Court judges, the Attorney General, the Bar Association president, and the law professor, would not participate in the appointment process for Appellate Division judges.

Similarly, the Attorney General, the Bar Association president and the law professor would be excluded from deliberations on the regularisation of additional High Court judges.

The council would also be empowered to recommend extending or terminating the tenure of additional High Court judges.​

 

[Saif]

SC judge appointment ordinance: Experts debate age-limit, council composition

Legal experts on Saturday welcomed the law ministry’s initiative to promulgate the Supreme Court Judge Appointment Ordinance 2024, emphasising its potential to enhance transparency and depoliticise judicial appointments.

www.newagebd.net

SC judge appointment ordinance: Experts debate age-limit, council composition
Staff Correspondent 29 December, 2024, 00:56

Legal experts on Saturday welcomed the law ministry’s initiative to promulgate the Supreme Court Judge Appointment Ordinance 2024, emphasising its potential to enhance transparency and depoliticise judicial appointments.

At a discussion, politicians, retired judges, academics and lawyers discussed the proposed ordinance, which proposed the establishment of an eight-member Supreme Court Judicial Appointment Council led by the chief justice.

The council would also include the most senior Appellate Division judge, two High Court judges––the most senior judge and another judge elevated from judicial service––, the attorney general, the Supreme Court Bar Association president, a retired Appellate Division judge nominated by the chief justice and a public university law professor nominated by the chief justice.

The draft ordinance was prepared based on proposals made by the Supreme Court and the Judicial Reform Commission. The law ministry hosted the discussion to gather feedback and refine the draft before its finalisation.

The ordinance proposes empowering the council to identify and recommend people for Supreme Court judgeship and send a final list to the president in consultation with the chief justice.

Concerns were, however, raised over the inclusion of the Supreme Court Bar Association president and the attorney general in the council as they held political posts.

The experts debated several issues, including 45-year minimum age requirement, equal representations of lawyers and judicial service officials and the selection process proposed in the ordinance for the appointment of HC judges.

The ordinance proposes a minimum age of 45 years for lawyers seeking appointment as additional High Court judges, which a number of discussants viewed as restrictive to find out candidates from practising lawyers.

Concerns were raised about balancing representation between members of the Supreme Court Bar Association and subordinate court judges in the appointment.

Experts questioned whether lawyers should formally apply and undergo interviews to qualify for judicial appointments.

Dhaka University law professor Borhan Uddin Khan criticised the proposed ordinance, arguing that it disproportionately proposed increasing the powers of the president and the council while limiting the chief justice’s authority, contrary to the constitutional mandate.

He highlighted concerns over the inclusion of temporary High Court judges, stating that the constitution did not recognise such positions.

He further noted that regularising High Court judges after two years was unnecessary, as they could be confirmed anytime once appointed.

Former High Court judges Shamim Hasnain and Miftah Uddin Choudhury doubted if any experienced lawyer would formally apply for judgeship.

Supreme Court lawyer Sara Hossain, however, supported the move as a step toward transparency.

Both former HC judges stressed that the proposed 45-year minimum age limit for High Court judges was essential to attract experienced candidates.

Supreme Court lawyer Jyotirmoy Barua opposed the inclusion of the attorney general, the bar president and a public university professor in the council, alleging potential conflicts of interest.

He also proposed lowering the age limit to 40 years and suggested a one-third lawyer-to-judicial officer ratio instead of an equal split in HC judge appointments.

Lawyer Ehsan A Siddique recommended appointing Appellate Division judges based on seniority. He strongly opposed the inclusion of the attorney general in the council, arguing that the current attorney general might go for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party nomination in the next general election.

Bangladesh Bar Council vice-chairman Zainul Abedin and senior lawyer Nitai Roy Chowdhury supported the inclusion of the attorney general.

Bangladesh Judicial Service Association president Amirul Islam defended the association’s recent statement opposing the SCBA president’s inclusion in the council.

He advocated for appointing 70 per cent of Supreme Court judges from amongst the subordinate court judges and proposed disqualifying candidates with third-class in any academic results.

Supreme Court Bar Association president AM Mahbub Uddin Khokon, however, supported the inclusion of the bar president, arguing that it would enable the council to assess the qualifications of judges and lawyers.

Attorney general Md Asaduzzaman emphasised the interim government’s mandate to legislate on judicial appointments and suggested the inclusion of the Bar Council vice-chairman in the council.

Environment adviser Syeda Rizwana Hasan expressed confidence in the ordinance’s intent to ensure transparency in judge appointments and prevent partisan influence. She emphasised that the ordinance should prevent politically aligned appointments to the Supreme Court.

The discussion, moderated by law adviser Asif Nazrul, concluded with diverse recommendations and highlighted the need for transparency and meritocracy in judicial appointments.​