[🇧🇩] Judiciary of Bangladesh.

[Saif]

A historic moment
Five female justices appointed to HC Division of SC

For the first time in Bangladesh's history, five female lawyers have been appointed as justices in the High Court Division of the Supreme Court.

This landmark decision was announced on October 8, when 23 new judges were appointed to the High Court Division, five of whom are women. They were sworn in by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed the next day.

This marks a new era in the country's judiciary and represents a significant step forward in promoting women's empowerment within the legal profession.

The newly appointed justices are Mubina Asaf, Nasreen Akhtar, Ainunnahar Siddika, Tamanna Rahman, and Sathika Hossain.

Legal experts have praised the appointments as a recognition of the vital contributions women are making to the legal profession.

Five out of 23 judges being women is certainly great news. We must continue to increase the number of women in the judiciary. I would have been even happier if it were more than 10.— Nazmun Ara Sultana First female justice in HC, Appellate Division.

They believe that the inclusion of five women in the High Court Division will serve as an inspiration for future generations, encouraging more women to pursue careers in law.

Nazmun Ara Sultana, Bangladesh's first female justice in both the High Court and Appellate Division, welcomed the move.

"Five out of 23 judges being women is certainly great news. It's a hopeful sign, but we must continue to increase the number of women in the judiciary. I would have been even happier if it were more than 10," she said.

Sultana further said women are excelling in the legal field, often outperforming their male colleagues.

Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua also praised the decision, noting that it reflects a shift from past tokenism toward merit-based appointments of women.

He added that more women are entering the legal profession, breaking barriers, and excelling despite challenges. At universities, female students are performing as well as their male counterparts, and with specialised law studies, the chance of producing quality lawyers is growing.

"If senior lawyers create opportunities, we will get good lawyers, and good lawyers lead to good judges," he said.​

 

[Saif]

Supreme Judicial Council revived

The Supreme Judicial Council, not parliament, will deal with the allegations against the Supreme Court judges over incapacity or misconduct, according to an Appellate Division verdict yesterday.

www.thedailystar.net

Supreme Judicial Council revived
Not JS, the council to recommend removal of SC judges for misconduct, incapacity, rules apex court

"The Supreme Judicial Council has been reactivated. There was some confusion surrounding this, but the court's verdict has cleared that. Now, the council can be made fully operational."— Law Adviser Asif Nazrul

The Supreme Judicial Council, not parliament, will deal with the allegations against the Supreme Court judges over incapacity or misconduct, according to an Appellate Division verdict yesterday.

The judgment, which came in response to a review petition filed by the previous government against an 2017 SC verdict, ends an eight-year-long stalemate and sticks to the HC's earlier verdict to scrap the 16th amendment to the constitution that empowered parliament to deal with the allegations against SC judges.

Before the 16th amendment was made in 2014, the council -- comprising the chief justice and two other senior judges of the Appellate Division -- had the authority to probe such allegations and make necessary recommendations to the president for action.

But when the High Court, in May 2016, scrapped the 16th amendment, parliament lost its power to deal with the matter. However, the council could not be made functional as the then government challenged the HC verdict at the Appellate Division.

Even after the Appellate Division upheld the HC verdict in July 2017, paving the way for making the council functional, the government filed a review petition, which created the legal stalemate.

Yesterday, a six-member bench of the Appellate Division, led by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, disposed of the review petition after a hearing, Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman told The Daily Star.

The apex court also made some observations, which would be known once the full text of the verdict was released, he added.

The judiciary has moved to a place where it can perform its duties independently, devoid of corruption and political influence.— Attorney General MD Asaduzzaman.

The development came at a time when students are demanding 12 HC judges, who they deem are pro-AL judges, be removed.

Appreciating the revival of the council, Law Adviser Asif Nazrul yesterday said the verdict gives the people, including students, a platform to raise their concerns, reports UNB.

"The Supreme Judicial Council has been reactivated. There was some confusion surrounding this, but the court's verdict has cleared that. Now, the council can be made fully operational," he said while speaking to reporters at the Secretariat.

He said the forum responsible for ensuring accountability of judges has been reinstated.

"If a complaint is lodged today, the process will begin immediately. There's no need for a separate notification; it is clearly stated in the constitution.

"When the council was inactive, there was no forum to ensure the accountability of the higher judiciary. At that time, the court administration also lacked the will to ensure such accountability, as they were delivering judgments dictated by others," Nazrul added.

He said, "There are some High Court judges against whom various sections of the society have myriad complaints. Some of them became instruments of the fallen oppressive regime. There are also allegations of corruption against a few. There have been reports in the media, and many are angry about this. Now, through the council, there is a constitutional way to address these grievances."

THE HISTORY

The constitution of 1972 empowered parliament to probe allegations against judges. But the 4th amendment in 1975 scrapped parliament's power and empowered the president to probe such allegations.

The president's power was curtailed in 1978 through a martial law proclamation, and the council was introduced. It was ratified and validated by the 5th amendment in 1979.

In 2005, the HC declared the 5th amendment illegal but condoned the introduction of the Supreme Judicial Council.

In February 2010, the SC upheld the 2005 HC verdict, and said the system of Supreme Judicial Council would be valid until December 31, 2011.

The AL-led government in mid-2011 made the 15th amendment to the constitution, allowing the council to continue, but in September 2014, it abolished the council through the 16th amendment.

However, following a writ petition filed by some SC lawyers, the HC on May 5, 2016, declared the 16th amendment unconstitutional and void, saying the changes went against the principles of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.

The government appealed to the Appellate Division.

A full bench of the Appellate Division, led by the then chief justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, who was allegedly forced to leave the country, heard the appeal, and delivered a verdict on July 3, 2017.

In the judgment, the apex court rejected the appeal and upheld the HC verdict.

In the full text of the verdict released on August 1, 2017, it said the power of the council to probe allegations against SC judges and making recommendations on their removal for misconduct or incapacity has been reinstated in the constitution.

The Hasina-led government then filed a 908-page review petition with the Appellate Division on December 24, 2017, outlining 94 grounds on which the court could consider the government's plea for restoring the 16th amendment, cancelling the provision for the council.

This petition was disposed of yesterday.

Justice Sinha's 2017 verdict strained the relationship between him and the AL government. He had to leave the country in October that year amid a further deterioration of the relationship, according to media reports.

HEARING, REACTIONS

Yesterday, AG Asaduzzaman told journalists at the court that following the judgment, the judiciary has moved to a place where it can perform its duties independently, devoid of corruption and political influence.

During the hearing yesterday, Asaduzzaman told the SC bench that he would not defend any of the grounds the previous government placed in the review petition, as those were baseless.

He, however, placed an appeal asking the court to clarify an ambiguity regarding the retirement ages and resignation of SC judges.

Manzill Murshid, lawyer for the 2016 writ petitioners, told the court that the petition was filed to protect the independence of the judiciary.

He said the Appellate Division had upheld the HC verdict, but then law minister Anisul Huq had said that the government would not comply with the SC verdict. The review petition was not acceptable, and it should be rejected, he told the court.

Murshid also said SC judges being able to resign was their fundamental right.

On behalf of the SC Bar Association, lawyer Md Ruhul Quddus Kazal told the bench that the previous government had committed fraud. It did not print or publish the constitution in accordance with the SC judgment.

He prayed to the apex court to summarily reject the review petition.

No lawyer placed any argument before the court yesterday on behalf of the then Hasina government that filed the review petition seven years ago.

Lawyer Murshid told The Daily Star that the Supreme Judicial Council has so far conducted inquiry into allegations against three HC judges.

One judge was removed following recommendation of the council and the other two judges resigned before the inquiries ended, he said.

The council can now launch inquiries into the allegations against 12 HC judges, who have been recently excluded from judicial activities, if the president asked the council to do so, he added.​

 

[Saif]

SC retains power to remove judges

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Sunday reinstated the constitutional provisions for Supreme Judicial Council, clearing the way for the removal of Supreme Court judges for...

www.newagebd.net

SC retains power to remove judges
Moneruzzaman 20 October, 2024, 12:26

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Sunday reinstated the constitutional provisions for Supreme Judicial Council, clearing the way for the removal of Supreme Court judges for misconduct or incapacity.

A six-member bench, headed by chief justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, pronounced its verdict upholding the highest court judgement that scrapped the 16th amendment to the constitution.

The top court restored the council that was originally established by the Fifth Amendment to the constitution in 1979 during the Bangladesh Nationalist Party rule.

The verdict also paved the way for the removal of the holders of constitutional offices, including the chief election commissioner, the chairman and members of the Public Service Commission, as well as top officials in statutory bodies, including the Anti-Corruption Commission, the National Human Rights Commission and the Information Commission, for misconduct or incapacity, according to legal experts.

This decision put an end to a decade-long legal battle over the process for the removal of Supreme Court judges.

The controversy began in 2014 when the Awami League government, amid widespread criticism, passed the 16th amendment to the constitution, restoring the parliament’s authority to remove SC judges.

On May 5, 2016, the High Court struck down the amendment reinstating the Supreme Judicial Council process for removal of SC judges.

The government later preferred appeal and the Appellate Division upheld the High Court judgement on July 3, 2017.

The government filed a fresh petition on December 24, 2017, seeking a review of the Appellate Division judgement.

The Appellate Division bench that disposed of the review petition on Sunday also included Justice Md Ashfaqul Islam, Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury, Justice Syed Md Ziaul Karim, Justice Md Rezaul Haque, and Justice SM Emdadul Hoque.

The chief justice delivered the verdict after hours of hearing, stating that the provisions of Article 96, as they had been before the 16th Amendment, were fully restored, addressing all ambiguities.

The article states that a judge shall not be removed from office except in accordance with the provisions outlined in this article.

The Supreme Judicial Council comprises the chief justice and the two most senior Appellate Division judges. It is responsible for establishing a code of conduct for judges and investigating the capacity or conduct of any judge or official who cannot be removed from office except in the same manner as a Supreme Court judge.

If the president receives information from the council or any other source suggesting that a judge is unable to perform their duties due to physical or mental incapacity, or has committed gross misconduct, the president may direct the council to investigate and submit a report, according to the restored Article 96.

If, following the inquiry, the council concludes that the judge is unfit to continue or has engaged in gross misconduct, the president shall order the judge’s removal from office.

A judge may also resign by submitting a written resignation to the president, according to the restored article 96(8) of the council.

As the Article 96 was revoked through 16th Amendment, the matter of resignation by a judge became ambiguous as no existing law covered the matter.

The court, however, asked the attorney general whether the verdict on the 16th Amendment would retain the 39-point code of conduct framed by the Appellate Division for the Supreme Court judges. The attorney general replied that it depended on the court’s discretion.

Following the verdict, attorney general Md Asaduzzaman informed reporters that there was now no legal barrier preventing the Chief Justice from initiating proceedings through the Supreme Judicial Council against the 12 High Court judges who had been kept out of the court for alleged misconduct.

The previous Awami League government had sought to restore the entire provision of Article 96 as it was in 1972 Constitution which granted the parliament the authority to remove Supreme Court judges, abolishing the entire provision of Article 96 incorporated in 1979 during the regime of then president Ziaur Rahman for the removal of the Supreme Court judges.

Attorney general Asaduzzaman mentioned during the hearing that among the 94 reasons presented in the petition, one significant issue was the restoration of the parliament’s power to remove judges.

‘I find no justification to support the reinstatement of parliamentary procedures for the removal of Supreme Court judges, as introduced by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 2014,’ said the attorney general.

Asaduzzaman said that the judiciary had emerged from the influence of corruption and politics through the upholding of the verdict on the cancellation of the 16th Amendment to the constitution.

He made the comments in response to questions from journalists at his office on Sunday.

He said that through the upholding of the verdict revoking the 16th Amendment to the constitution, the judiciary had moved to a place where it would be able to perform its duties independently.

Sunday’s verdict was indeed historic for the independence of the judiciary, he said.

The attorney general, however, said that a supplementary petition was filed with the Appellate Division to spell out if there were any ambiguities regarding the submission of a Supreme Court judge’s resignation to the president.

The interim government’s law adviser Asif Nazrul told reporters at his Secretariat office that the Supreme Court order opened a constitutional path to address the grievances of students and the public regarding certain Supreme Court judges accused of corruption.

The alleged judges acted as instruments of oppression under the previous fascist regime, he said.

On October 16, the Supreme Court administration announced that the chief justice decided to kept 12 High Court judges out of the court and would be placed on leave starting from October 20, following student protests over alleged judicial discrimination.

Aziz Ahmed Bhuiyan acknowledged the complexities involved in removing judges, stating that there is currently no law in place governing the process.

He further mentioned that the Chief Justice has scheduled a hearing for the Appellate Division’s review petition regarding the removal of judges on October 20, the first day of the Supreme Court’s new session.

The Constitution (16th Amendment) Bill, 2014, passed by Jatiya Sangsad on September 17, 2014, without opposition, empowered Parliament to impeach Supreme Court judges for ‘incapacity’ or ‘misconduct.’ The bill received presidential assent on September 22, 2014.

Supreme Court lawyer Manzil Murshid on behalf of nine Supreme Court lawyers challenged the legality of the Sixteenth Amendment, which effectively repealed the Fifth Amendment and replaced the Supreme Judicial Council—headed by the Chief Justice—with parliamentary authority to remove judges.​

 

[Saif]

Bangladesh’s CJ sends proposal to govt for separate secretariat for judiciary

Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed on Sunday submitted a comprehensive proposal to the Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs to establish a dedicated judicial secretariat under the Supreme Court...

www.newagebd.net

Bangladesh’s CJ sends proposal to govt for separate secretariat for judiciary
Staff Correspondent 27 October, 2024, 18:37

Bangladesh’s chief justice Syed Refaat Ahmed | BSS photo

Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed on Sunday submitted a comprehensive proposal to the Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs to establish a dedicated judicial secretariat under the Supreme Court.

Aimed at enhancing the High Court’s supervisory role, the proposed secretariat would centralise oversight of all courts and tribunals, in line with Article 109 of the constitution.

The proposal includes concept papers, a draft of the Judicial Secretariat Ordinance 2024, recommended amendments to the Rules of Business 1996, revisions to the Allocation of Business, and an initial organogram for the new body, according to a circular from Supreme Court Registrar General Aziz Ahmed Bhuiyan.

In his address to subordinate court judges, the Chief Justice on September 21 outlined a judiciary reform roadmap, emphasising the need for a judicial secretariat to strengthen the independence of the judiciary.

The chief justice in his address to the judicial officers had also urged the interim government to implement proposals for reforms urgently to enable the judiciary to function neutrally and independently.

He raised the proposals in the presence of law adviser Asif Nazrul and attorney general Md Asaduzzaman while addressing a gathering of subordinate court judges at a ceremony at the Supreme Court garden.

One of the key reforms the chief justice proposed was the establishment of a Supreme Court Secretariat, akin to the Secretariat of the Election Commission and Parliament, which would centralise the administrative authority of the judiciary.

This, he noted, would end the dual administration system currently seen by subordinate court judges, who were now being overseen by both the law ministry and the judiciary.

According to the chief justice’s speech, the power of appointment, transfer, promotion, and disciplinary actions concerning subordinate judges should be vested in the secretary of the proposed Supreme Court Secretariat, thereby eliminating the need for amendments to existing laws.

Despite a landmark 1999 ruling by the Appellate Division mandating a separation of the judiciary from executive and legislative control, judicial independence remains limited.

The ruling included 12 directives, notably the eighth, which called for full autonomy of the judiciary through a judicial secretariat under the Supreme Court.

While the military-backed caretaker government formally separated the judiciary from the executive on November 1, 2007, successive governments have yet to establish the judicial secretariat critical to this independence.

As a result, the law ministry retains control over key functions of the judiciary, including promotions, postings, and transfers of subordinate court judges, as well as disciplinary actions.

Meanwhile, the High Court on Sunday issued a ruling questioning the constitutionality of Article 116, which grants the president authority over lower court judges ‘in consultation with the Supreme Court.’

The court asked the interim government to explain why the provision should not be declared unconstitutional, as it establishes dual control by both the law ministry and the Supreme Court over the lower judiciary.

Article 116 currently allows the president to oversee appointments, promotions, leave, and disciplinary matters for lower court judges, albeit with consultation from the Supreme Court.

The ruling required responses within four weeks from the cabinet secretary, the law secretary, and the principal officer of the Chief Adviser’s Office.

The High Court’s ruling was issued by a bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debashish Roy Chowdhury, following a writ petition filed on August 25 by 10 Supreme Court lawyers.

Representing the petitioners, lawyer Mohammad Shishir Manir argued that Article 116 undermined judicial independence.

The court also asked the government to explain the legality of the Bangladesh Judicial Service (Disciplinary) Rules, 2017, omitting the Supreme Court as the higher authority for the subordinate court judges.

The rules named the president or the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs as the only ‘appropriate authority’ for the lower court judges.

The president framed the rules on December 11, 2017 after law ministry’s buying times for years to comply with a 12-point directive issued by the Appellate Division in 1999.

The court also asked to explain why a directive should not be given on the government to establish a judicial secretariat.​

 

[Saif]

Judicial secretariat under SC is long overdue

THIS is unacceptable that the judiciary has not enjoyed effective separation from other state organs and has not been truly independent, even though the constitution declares in unambiguous terms that the state ‘shall ensure the separation of the judiciary from the executive organs of the...

www.newagebd.net

Judicial secretariat under SC is long overdue
29 October, 2024, 00:00

THIS is unacceptable that the judiciary has not enjoyed effective separation from other state organs and has not been truly independent, even though the constitution declares in unambiguous terms that the state ‘shall ensure the separation of the judiciary from the executive organs of the state’. On November 1, 2007, the then caretaker government formally separated the judiciary from the two other organs of the state based on the 12-point directives that the Appellate Division issued in December 1999. But the separation and the independence of the judiciary have virtually remained on paper while the executive exercises substantial control over the trial courts. During the 15 and a half years of authoritarian rule of the Awami League, which was deposed on August 5 amidst a student-mass uprising, the government controlled the judiciary and used it for partisan gains. In such a situation, the chief justice coming to give a comprehensive proposal for an effective and meaningful separation of the judiciary from the executive and the legislative is welcome. The chief justice is reported to have submitted the proposal on October 27 to the ministry of law, justice, and parliamentary affairs. The proposal includes the establishment of the much-talked-about judicial secretariat under the Supreme Court to enhance the Supreme Court’s supervisory role.

The 1999 directive directed the government to establish a Supreme Court Secretariat to ensure the financial freedom of the judiciary and deal with issues related to the effective functioning of the judiciary in terms of judicial administration and budgetary allocation. The proposed secretariat, in line with Article 109 of the constitution, was expected to centralise oversight of all courts and tribunals. But successive governments have not established the secretariat critical to the independence of the judiciary, leaving the judiciary at the mercy of the executive for its pay scale, budget and funds and offering the executive a handle to control important affairs of the judiciary. The chief justice, earlier on September 21, while outlining a judiciary reform roadmap, duly remarked that a Supreme Court Secretariat would end the dual administration system currently seen by subordinate court judges, who are now being overseen by both the law ministry and the judiciary. The executive still controls the promotion, posting and transfer of judges in the subordinate courts and decides disciplinary action against errant judges, which is contrary to the spirit of the separation of the judiciary. The control of the executive and the legislative over the judiciary has been a decline in the rule of law and a huge backlog of cases.

A complete separation of the judiciary would also continue to remain on paper until Article 116 of the constitution that vests the authority of the control of lower court judges in the president is amended to restore the full authority over the lower judiciary to the Supreme Court. The government should realise that a complete independence of the judiciary is of utmost necessity for democratic governance and should, therefore, amend all the provisions that curtail the complete separation of the judiciary and establish a Supreme Court Secretariat.​

 

[Saif]

Ending executive's power over judiciary

It is urgent that the top court is empowered to conduct its business of disciplining the lower court, making appointments, transfer of the judges and do other related functions transparently and effectively without being stymied by the influence of the executive branch of the state In a welcome de

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Ending executive's power over judiciary
FE
Published :
Oct 29, 2024 21:48
Updated :
Oct 29, 2024 21:48

It is urgent that the top court is empowered to conduct its business of disciplining the lower court, making appointments, transfer of the judges and do other related functions transparently and effectively without being stymied by the influence of the executive branch of the state

In a welcome development, the Chief Justice (CJ) is reported to have sent a proposal recently to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs for setting up a separate secretariat for the judiciary. Understandably, the objective of the proposal is to ensure independence of the judiciary. It may be recalled at this point that the landmark verdict handed down on December 2, 1999 by the Appellate Division in the famous Masdar Hossain case opened the door for separating the judiciary as it established (through the verdict) that the service of the judges of the country's subordinate courts was not the same as that of the members of the civil service. Thanks to the non-cooperation of the successive governments in the past that the verdict of the Masdar Hossain case could not be implemented for realisation of the spirit of the Article 22 of the Constitution. The effort of the 2007's caretaker government, which established a separate judicial service commission by amending the Code of Criminal Procedure and enacting the Judicial Service Rules, 2007, to this end did not also see the light of day. That is because, once in power, every elected government since the 1990s conveniently forgot to make good on their pre-election promise of separating the powers of the executive and the judiciary. The experience of the past, especially of the last one and a half decade, has amply demonstrated what price a nation has to pay if the power of the executive is not counterbalanced by an independent judiciary.

However, the July-August revolution led by students with overwhelming support of the masses that ended the autocratic rule of Hasina has opened up the rare opportunity to complete the unfinished task. As things stand at the moment, the law ministry acts as the secretariat of the judiciary and hence can interfere in the affairs of recruitment, transfer and promotion of judges of the subordinate courts. Once the apex court regains its full authority, the discretionary power of high governments officials exercised before on other organs of the state would be over. To this end, the CJ's proposal sent to the law ministry does, as reported, include a concept paper that explains the necessity and objectives of a separate secretariat for the judiciary under the Supreme Court by abolishing the existing system of joint authority of the apex court and the law ministry on the matter.

Also, the need for a separate secretariat for the judiciary emerges from the development that has taken place over the years in terms of a phenomenal rise in the number of lawsuits, administrative proceedings of the apex court as well as an increase in the number of judges in the subordinate courts. Against this backdrop, it is urgent that the top court is empowered to conduct its business of disciplining the lower court, making appointments, transfer of the judges and do other related functions transparently and effectively without being stymied by the influence of the executive branch of the state. This is also the basic condition for democracy to take hold in a modern state where the rule of law and constitutional obligations matter.

Now that the apex court has done its part by way of providing the necessary roadmap for making the judiciary truly independent, it is up to the law ministry to do its bit by vesting it (the apex court) with the necessary authority to that end.​

 

[Saif]

Activating the SC 'Code of Conduct'

After the fall of the Hasina government on August 5, the judiciary has seen a changing of the guard with the departure of several judges, including the Chief Justice. The judiciary had, in fact, become one of the key instruments for legitimizing the misdeeds and misrule of the ruling elites. Chief

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Activating the SC 'Code of Conduct'
Mir Mostafizur Rahaman
Published :
Oct 30, 2024 22:04
Updated :
Oct 30, 2024 22:04

After the fall of the Hasina government on August 5, the judiciary has seen a changing of the guard with the departure of several judges, including the Chief Justice. The judiciary had, in fact, become one of the key instruments for legitimizing the misdeeds and misrule of the ruling elites.

Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha issued a verdict while disposing of the appeal in the 16th Amendment case, and he was compelled to resign because the verdict went against the government's interests.

The fall of the Hasina regime has therefore sparked hope that the judiciary will be reformed so that it cannot be used as a tool to legitimise illegal activities by the government.

To conduct such reform, the process for appointing and removing judges must be made transparent. It must be ensured that judges cannot be removed under political pressure. Similarly, a judge must be held accountable if they violate their oath or commit misconduct.

Interestingly, the seven-member bench led by Chief Justice Sinha prescribed a 39-point code of conduct for judges when delivering the verdict in the 16th Amendment case. This same verdict reinstated the Supreme Judicial Council, stating that the 16th Amendment, which empowered parliament to remove a judge, is unconstitutional.

"With a view to avoiding any misgiving and confusion, we reformulate the Code of Conduct in exercise of powers under article 96 as under: Code of Conduct" the judgement reads.

Following are some of the 39-point "Code of Conduct" formulated by the Supreme Court:

"A Judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary is preserved".

"A Judge should respect and comply with the constitution and law, and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary".

"A Judge should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A Judge should not lend the prestige of the judicial office, advance the private interests of others; nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the Judge".

"A Judge should dispose of promptly the business of the court including avoiding inordinate delay in delivering judgments/orders. In no case a judgment shall be signed later than six months of the date of delivery of judgment".

"A Judge shall disqualify himself/herself in a proceeding in which the Judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned".

"A Judge is expected to let his judgments speak for themselves. About the process for punishing a judge for his misconduct the judgement said, "If a complaint is received by the Chief Justice from anybody or any other sources that the conduct of a Judge is unbecoming of a Judge, that is to say, the Judge is unable to perform his/her judicial work due to incapacity or misbehaviour, the Chief Justice shall hold an inquiry into such activities with other next two senior most Judges of the Appellate Division and if the Chief Justice of any one of the other Judges declines to hold a preliminary inquiry or if the allegation is against any one of them, the Judge who is next in seniority to them shall act as such member and if upon such inquiry it found that there is prima-facie substance in the allegation the Chief Justice shall recommend to the president".

"The above Code of Conduct and the ethical values to be followed by a Judge, failing which, it shall be considered as gross misconduct".

The SC bench in its verdict stated that "The decisions of the apex court of the country are final not because they are infallible, but because the decisions are infallible as they are constitutionally final. By the impugned amendment, the removal mechanism of the Judges of higher judiciary by the Supreme Judicial Council has been substituted by the Parliamentary removal mechanism.

Since this amendment in ultra vires the constitution, the provision prevailing before substitution is restored".

Let us hope that to ensure transparency and accountability in the judiciary the Supreme Judicial Council will be operative and 'Code of conduct' formulated by the SC will be followed.​

 

[Saif]

'Judges can perform duties at a workplace for 3 years'

SC admin seeks opinions on draft rules

www.thedailystar.net

'Judges can perform duties at a workplace for 3 years'
SC admin seeks opinions on draft rules

The Supreme Court administration has drafted the lower court judges' transfer and posting rules incorporating a provision that a judge can perform duties in a single workplace for maximum three years.

However, if it appears to the chief justice that any judge is engaged in any special duty or there is a possibility of disruption in the administration of justice if the judge is transferred, in that case the judge can perform the assigned duties at the same workplace for a maximum of one year, according to the drafted rules titled as the Lower Court Judges' Transfer and Posting Rules, 2004.

It said without any exception, the judges of the subordinate courts must be transferred to civil and criminal courts by turn.

The drafted rules said no judge can be transferred without a vacancy. A judge cannot be transferred to a court or tribunal where their family members are engaged in legal profession.

Before joining the Bangladesh Judicial Service, if a judge has practiced law for a minimum of two years from a district bar association, he or she will not be eligible for appointment as a judge in that district for the next 10 years from the date of joining the service.

If any judge who owns more than 10 decimals of agricultural or non-agricultural land in a district, he cannot be posted in that district, according to the five-page drafted policy.

The SC administration has sent the draft policy to all the lower court judges across the country today and asked them to give their opinions on the drafted rules by November 7 to the SC registrar general's office via email address aticklaw@gmail.com or Whatsapp 01716185583.

Earlier on September 21, Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed in an address to lower court judges outlined a roadmap for the judiciary including formulating a rules for transfer and posting of subordinate court judges.​

 

[Saif]

Reform should attend to class bias in justice delivery system

THIS is unfortunate that 12 years after the Tazreen Fashions fire that left at least 119 workers dead and 176 more workers injured on November 24, 2012, the victims and affected families are still denied justice. After the fire, the media reported violations of labour law, including the storage...

www.newagebd.net

Reform should attend to class bias in justice delivery system
25 November, 2024, 00:00

THIS is unfortunate that 12 years after the Tazreen Fashions fire that left at least 119 workers dead and 176 more workers injured on November 24, 2012, the victims and affected families are still denied justice. After the fire, the media reported violations of labour law, including the storage of flammable substances on factory premises, a lack of fire exits and the locking up of main gates. The investigation also reached a similar conclusion and recommended that factory owners and managers should be tried for culpable homicide. It is evident that the criminal negligence of the factory managers and the failure of the authorities concerned to ensure worker safety are responsible for the loss of lives, yet trial proceedings are stalled because of the prosecution’s repeated failures to produce witnesses in court. Since the trial began in October 2015, as court officials say, only 15 witnesses of the 104 named in the charge sheet have given their deposition. The delay in court proceedings ultimately shields the owner.

A similar delay in trial proceedings is also reported in the case of the 2013 collapse of Rana Plaza. Media report and police investigation showed the nature of systemic negligence and gross disregard for worker safety that existed in the operation of five factories housed in the nine-storey building at Savar. Violations of building safety codes were found which indicates complicity of the local administration in approving the construction of the building on a marsh land. There are 20 pending cases in this regard, including 11 with the labour court, all of which are stalled in various stages of legal proceedings. All the accused but the building owner are in custody. Survivors of the collapse, observing the delay, questioned the integrity of the legal system, as it appears hesitant to bring factory owners to justice. Their claims are not unfounded given that the charge sheet in the murder case filed over the Hashem Foods fire in Narayanganj, which left 54 workers dead, dropped the names of the company owner and his four sons. Barely any case related to worker death at workplace because of the owner’s negligence has reached conviction. For injured workers, the notion of justice is, however, not limited to conviction. It also includes proper compensation, the rehabilitation of the injured and an amendment to the compensation clause in the labour law.​

It is high time that the government set a legal precedent to send out a signal that factory owners are not above the law by duly conducting the investigation and subsequent trial of the owner and other managerial staff. It should also look into the failures on part of the prosecution in producing witnesses in court and give policy directives to address reported inefficiencies and legal bureaucracy. It is an opportune moment for the interim government to engage the recently formed legal reforms commission to attend to the class bias of the justice delivery system.

 

[Saif]

Decentralisation of the High Court a timely demand

THE judicial system in Bangladesh is crying out for reform. No government so far has taken any effective step in this regard. Following the July-August uprising, the interim government was formed, which shouldered the high aspirations of the people and accordingly formed a number of commissions...

www.newagebd.net

Decentralisation of the High Court a timely demand
Muhammad Mamunur Rashid 25 November, 2024, 00:00

New Age

THE judicial system in Bangladesh is crying out for reform. No government so far has taken any effective step in this regard. Following the July-August uprising, the interim government was formed, which shouldered the high aspirations of the people and accordingly formed a number of commissions to materialise people’s aspirations, including judicial and constitutional commissions.

As per the existing constitutional provisions, the High Court Division is seated only in Dhaka, which can by no means be adequate for a nation having eighteen crore people. When the framers of the constitution enacted the provisions regarding the seat of the High Court in 1972, the total population of Bangladesh was seven crore, which now becomes eighteen crore. A court constituted aiming to deliver justice to seven crore people can by no means serve the same purpose for eighteen crore people. A Dhaka-centric High Court is neither adequate nor consistent with the aspirations of the nation and in no way can ensure the equal dispensation of justice.

Undoubtedly, the High Court Division is overloaded with cases. As per the Annual Report 2022 published in the official website of the Bangladesh Supreme Court, the total number of cases pending before the High Court was 5,16,674 until December 2022, and out of them only 87,474 cases were disposed of, that is 17 per cent of total cases. The report also shows that 91,498 cases were newly filed in the High Court in 2022. In the last ten years, the number of newly filed cases has almost doubled.

There is no specific data as to the total number of people visiting Dhaka every day for litigation purposes. The number of cases pending before the High Court says that it is supposed to be a huge number that directly creates pressure on the population of the capital city. However, this number of people doesn’t represent all classes of society. The poor can’t afford the cost to reach the High Court that ultimately results in justice for the rich. This discrimination can be eliminated by getting the High Court decentralised, which will facilitate access to the High Court for all, resulting in greater access to justice. The present constitution of Bangladesh guarantees eighteen fundamental rights for the citizens, and to move to the High Court to enforce any of these rights is itself a fundamental right. Without making the High Court accessible and affordable to all, how can such rights be enforced?

In 1982, during Ershad’s regime, six permanent benches of the High Court Division were set up at Chittagong, Sylhet, Comilla, Jossore, Rangpur, and Barishal by Martial Law Proclamation. The Supreme Court Bar Association construed this decentralisation as unjustified and a design to destroy the institution of the judiciary. They started to protest the mode of decentralisation from the beginning and boycotted the court for months. The then Chief Justice could not sit in any court for three years. In 1988, while the constitution was revived after revocation of martial law, provisions for the aforesaid permanent benches were incorporated in the constitution by the eighth amendment. It could not stop the agitation. Finally, the issue went to the court, challenging the constitutionality of the eighth amendment. The Appellate Division, consisting of four judges, declared the impugned amendment as void and ultra vires by a majority of 3:1 following the doctrine of the basic structure of the constitution introduced by the Indian Supreme Court. However, all four judges could not reach any unanimous decision as to the number of basic structures. It was not even decided which structures are basic and which are not. The Indian Supreme Court invoked the doctrine of basic structure with a view to protecting the fundamental rights of Indian citizens from any alteration by the parliament. It upheld people’s interest. But in Bangladesh, the doctrine was invoked to examine such an amendment that facilitated access to the High Court to enforce fundamental rights.

Political climate is a major obstacle to decentralisation of the High Court, which was not in favour during the military regime of general Ershad. Now the situation is different. Nothing but the people’s interest should be the final word to this interim government. They have already constituted a commission headed by professor Ali Riaz for constitutional reform. It is incumbent upon this commission to act in such a way that reflects the demands of society. Keeping the High Court centralised in Dhaka does not reflect the demand of society.

Muhammad Mamunur Rashid is an advocate, Bangladesh Supreme Court.​

 

[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.​