[🇧🇩] Judiciary of Bangladesh.

[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.​

 

[Saif]

Minimum age for elevation of SC judges should be flexible

THE law ministry has prepared a draft based on two drafts of an ordinance that the Supreme Court and the judiciary reforms commission, which the government set up on October 3 for it...

www.newagebd.net

Minimum age for elevation of SC judges should be flexible
29 December, 2024, 00:00

THE law ministry has prepared a draft based on two drafts of an ordinance that the Supreme Court and the judiciary reforms commission, which the government set up on October 3 for it to submit the report in 90 days, have separately worked out to ensure transparency and meritocracy in the judiciary. The draft of the Supreme Court has proposed 50 years as the minimum age for the appointment of judges at the High Court and 60 years for the appointment of judges at the Appellate Division. The judiciary reforms commission in its draft has not, however, proposed any age limit of judges for their elevation to the High Court or the Appellate Division but has suggested 10 years’ professional experience keeping to the constitutional requirements. But the draft that the law ministry has prepared proposes 45 years as the minimum age for judges to be elevated to the High Court although it has not proposed any minimum age for the appointment of judges to the Appellate Division. The Supreme Court’s draft also seeks the establishment of a judicial appointment council, with nine members headed by the chief justice, for the appointment of the judges. The reforms commission, however, seeks the establishment of a Supreme Court judges’ appointment commission, with eight members headed by the chief justice, for the task.

The law adviser to the interim government says that the drafts of the ordinance that the Supreme Court and the judiciary reforms commission have prepared are significantly similar with some minor differences. The fifth amendment to the constitution in 1978 added an article, provisioning for the qualification of Supreme Court judges to be set by a law. But successive governments have been unwilling to enact such a law presumably to provision for the appointment of judges on political considerations or by way of nepotism. In such a situation, the legislation at hand that would be forthcoming could resolve many of the issues that have always remained prickly in the appointment of judges at the Supreme Court. But the minimum age of 50 years for the elevation of judges to the High Court and 60 years for the elevation to the Appellate Division that the Supreme Court has proposed does not sound right. Considering that there could be candidates adequately trained in law, having a strong legal background, proven impartiality and loyalty to the law, the provision for the minimum age that the Supreme Court draft suggests would discriminate against such candidates and deny the judiciary some brilliant minds. Considering that the Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 67, the minimum age for the appointment of the judges, a probable tenure of seven years for Appellate Division judges and 17 years for the High Court judges appears inadequate if the judiciary means to champion meritocracy.

While the legislation envisaged should resolve the issues of the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, thereby ending controversies that have almost always surfaced during such appointment, it should keep the minimum age for the appointment of Supreme Court judges, both for the High Court and the Appellate Division, lower and 40 years of age appears a good solution.​

 

[Saif]

Competent judges must be appointed to High Court, says Advisor Asif Nazrul

Law Advisor Asif Nazrul has said appointing competent judges to the High Court is crucial for ensuring justice in Bangladesh reports bdnews24.com. "These judges hear cases related to all fundamental rights of the citizens. They decide cases on violations of the rights of over 160 million people,&r

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Competent judges must be appointed to High Court, says Advisor Asif Nazrul
Published :
Dec 28, 2024 23:54
Updated :
Dec 28, 2024 23:54

Law Advisor Asif Nazrul has said appointing competent judges to the High Court is crucial for ensuring justice in Bangladesh reports bdnews24.com.

"These judges hear cases related to all fundamental rights of the citizens. They decide cases on violations of the rights of over 160 million people,” he said during a discussion titled the "Supreme Court Judges Appointment Ordinance, 2024” at the Judicial Administration Training Institute, or JATI, on Saturday.

Nazrul explained that the High Court judges also serve as appellate judges and, under Article 102 of the Constitution, can intervene in non-fundamental matters if they are convinced of the need to do so.

He reminded that the Constitution grants judges significant power, warning that if this institution is compromised, it would provide any repressive government with the opportunity to muzzle human rights.

“This is exactly what has happened over the last 15 years. The High Court has been turned into a tool for rights violations and the persecution of people,” said the advisor.

He referred to the case of Khadijatul Kubra, a political science student at Jagannath University, to highlight some of the failures of the judicial system.

“Such incidents have occurred, where the Appellate Division delayed her bail petition just to keep her in jail longer. Horrible things have happened.”

Nazrul criticised irregularities in judicial appointments, citing instances where those who had failed judicial exams or lacked practical experience were appointed to high judicial positions.

"I have witnessed the least attentive, politically biased people, with low moral standards, claim to be High Court judges. It’s astonishing," he said.

Nazrul called for addressing these issues in judicial appointments, saying: "We need to act. We must address this through the law. We need to see how we can make this process more constitutional and efficient.

“The main objective is clear—appoint more honest, qualified, and dedicated judges to the High Court."

He continued, “We will prepare a final draft and check for any constitutional conflicts. We will not allow a 54-year-old Constitution to hold us back.”

Nazrul pointed out that the irregularities are not limited to appointments to the High Court, but extend to the appointment of judges to the Appellate Division, bench allocation, the selection of the Chief Justice, and elevation to the Appellate Division.

"We will try to address each of these issues step by step," he said, adding: "We are extremely fortunate to have a reform-minded chief justice.

“Everyone should come together to make meaningful reforms, introduce good laws, and ensure better appointments."​

 

[Bilal9]

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

View attachment 9583

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.​

Wow - Bangladesh is always ahead of the rest of South Asia in these respects. Props for these reforms!

The number of women at the Indian Supreme Court is now 2 out of 33.

Gender Diversity at the Supreme Court of India - Supreme Court Observer

75 Years after the establishment of the Supreme Court, the institution has seen just 11 women judges in its corridors.

www.scobserver.in

 

[Bilal9]

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

View attachment 10159

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.​

This is 2024 - and I still cannot believe we don't have an independent judiciary. Corrupt political parties always like to keep judges in their pockets. Even other South Asian countries are reverting back to this state of affairs.

 

[Saif]

This is 2024 - and I still cannot believe we don't have an independent judiciary. Corrupt political parties always like to keep judges in their pockets. Even other South Asian countries are reverting back to this state of affairs.

Bilal bhai, before we separate judiciary from executive, we need to reform our judiciary system to make it corruption free and accountable. Hope you agree with me.

 

[Bilal9]

Bilal bhai, before we separate judiciary from executive, we need to reform our judiciary system to make it corruption free and accountable. Hope you agree with me.

I concur wholeheartedly bhai. That is why there was the idea of a Judicial secretariat mooted which can remove judges if found to be corrupted. Judiciary has to discipline its own without influence from the executive.

 

[Saif]

2025, a new era for the judiciary

Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed has expressed optimism that 2025 will mark a new beginning for the judiciary in Bangladesh, following the implementation of reforms outlined in the roadmap he announced on September 21, 2024.

www.thedailystar.net

2025, a new era for the judiciary
Hopes chief justice

Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed has expressed optimism that 2025 will mark a new beginning for the judiciary in Bangladesh, following the implementation of reforms outlined in the roadmap he announced on September 21, 2024.

"The chief justice expressed his hope that in 2025, the judiciary of Bangladesh will be completely free from the influence of the executive and enjoy the benefits of its institutional independence and thus, by devoting itself to the service of the people as an independent organ of the state, the judiciary will be able to fulfill the aspirations of the people of July-August revolution of 2024," a Supreme Court press release said yesterday.

The chief justice revealed that a comprehensive action plan for judicial reform will be adopted by 2025.

Significant strides have already been made toward this goal, including the establishment of a separate secretariat for the judiciary, the formation of an independent council for the appointment of SC judges, and the development of transfer and posting policies for subordinate court judges.

Furthermore, following the resolution of the review petition concerning the constitution's 16th amendment, the Supreme Judicial Council of Bangladesh has been reconstituted under the chief justice's leadership and is currently functioning at full capacity.

According to the SC press release, the chief justice has already taken various initiatives to ensure transparency and accountability of judicial services for the litigants by eliminating all forms of corruption from the judiciary as soon as possible.​