Donate ☕
[🇧🇩] - Judiciary of Bangladesh. | Page 3 | PKDefense

[🇧🇩] Judiciary of Bangladesh.

Reply (Scroll)
Press space to scroll through posts
G Bangladesh Defense
[🇧🇩] Judiciary of Bangladesh.
64
2K
More threads by Saif


Irregularities, bribery rampant in SC procedures
M Moneruzzaman 14 June, 2025, 23:43

1749945948358.webp


Irregularities, bribery and harassment are allegedly rampant at every stage of case procedure in the Supreme Court in spite of the chief justice’s pledge to ensure judicial accountability and root out corruption from the judicial system.

A number of lawyers alleged that they were facing the problem at almost all stages of a case procedure, from filing the petitions and collecting signed orders.

Corruption by court staff or lawyers’ clerks damages the judiciary’s image in the public eye, chief justice Syed Refaat Ahmed said on September 21, 2024, while unveiling a roadmap for judicial reforms.

He also declared a policy of zero tolerance for any form of corruption, stating that corruption, even in a judge’s private life, tarnishes the image of the entire judiciary.

The lawyers claimed that irregularities had become so routine that they now functioned like ‘customary laws,’ despite not being part of any official rules approved by the Bangladesh Bar Council.

Supreme Court registrar general Aziz Ahmed Bhuiyan told New Age on June 12 that the administration could not take action without receiving specific complaints.New Age products

‘We cannot investigate or act without concrete allegations,’ he said. ‘However, we remain vigilant and are investigating several cases internally.’

According to many lawyers, they cannot continue legal practice without complying with corrupt practices that have become part of the ‘informal system’.

They alleged that leaders of the Bar Association were failing to take action against widespread bribery and harassment in court services, even after receiving formal complaints.

A lawyer alleged that he approached the Bar leaders with his concerns, but they told him to ‘follow the system’ if he wanted to continue practicing law.

‘You have to do what everyone else is doing,’ the lawyer quoted a Bar leader as saying.

In the Supreme Court, orders or verdicts are often left untyped for months, even years, unless bench officers are paid bribes.

A lawyer said that an order he obtained from the court was not typed until his clerk paid Tk 500 to a bench officer.

Once typed, the judge’s ‘jamadar’ allegedly demands at least Tk 100 to bring out the signed order from the judge’s chamber.

For certified copies, section officials allegedly refuse to process files without payments ranging from Tk 300 to Tk 500, lawyers said.

In some cases, court officials allegedly call lawyers to inform them that their orders have arrived, they said, explaining that the implied meaning of the call was that the officials expect payment for the delivery of the orders.

Dispatch Section staff also allegedly delay sending court orders to recipients unless they are paid at least Tk 100.

One lawyer said that his order meant for Dhaka Judges’ Court was held for three days simply because he did not pay the bribe.

The morning submission of hearing slips, approved by judges, often turns meaningless as bench officers allegedly exclude cases from the day’s list unless they are paid Tk 500 or more.

A lawyer claimed that hearing slips were delayed for up to two months for not making payment.

Affidavits, too, are allegedly sworn in immediately only if affidavit officers receive bribes, according to the lawyers.

Similarly, after government authorities are served court notices, section staff allegedly refuse to put the ‘ready for hearing’ seal on files unless they are paid Tk 300 to Tk 500.

In cases of non-payment, the files are returned, causing further delay.

Although it is the section’s responsibility to send listed cases to court, lawyers allege that files do not reach the bench unless their clerks pay Tk 100 to Tk 200 to the section officer in the morning.

If there is no payment, lawyers are often left standing in court without their files being produced.

According to a lawyer, the official estimate to get a certified copy of an order is Tk 150 to Tk 200.

But, in reality, lawyers are forced to pay around Tk 2,000 to receive the copy.

‘If no bribe is paid, the application goes missing even after the estimated fee is verified,’ he said.

Files related to enrollment in the Appellate Division go missing for years unless bribes are paid to the judge’s assistant, commonly referred to as ‘Addali’, some lawyers alleged.

In many cases, Addalis allegedly demand Tk 20,000 to Tk 25,000 per file to circulate them among High Court judges for required signatures.

According to another lawyer, the behavior of some court staff is rude and disrespectful.

‘We feel like hostages to these staff. They don’t respect us as lawyers,’ he added.

Some lawyers said that they avoided paying bribes because of their religious beliefs.

They, however, claimed that the court officials pressured them to be involved in illegal practices.

The lawyers urged the Bar Association to intervene and stop the growing malpractice in the court system.

Bangladesh Bar Council convener and senior lawyer Zainul Abedin told New Age on June 12 that he also declared zero tolerance for corruption within the Bar Council, echoing the chief justice’s stance on judicial reforms.New Age products

‘Both the Bangladesh Bar Council and the chief justice are working together to eliminate corruption from the judiciary,’ he said.

He said that the chief justice was identifying areas of malpractice and seeking input from bar associations to address them.

Zainul Abedin acknowledged the urgency of tackling corruption in the Supreme Court but noted that such longstanding problems could not be resolved overnight, especially given the chief justice’s short tenure.

‘Still, I am hopeful that the incumbent chief justice will be able to bring meaningful change,’ he added.

Additional attorney general Mohammad Arshadur Rouf told New Age on Saturday that the allegations of bribery in the higher judiciary should not be generalised.

‘The allegations should be specific. If you provide concrete information, I will personally request the chief justice to take action,’ he said.New Age products

He said that, to his knowledge, the chief justice was addressing the issue, and several staff members and bench officers had faced action.

‘I caught a bench officer red-handed for corruption. He was later suspended,’ said Arshad, who is also a senior lawyer.

Md Muajjem Hussain, special officer of the High Court Division and spokesman of the Supreme Court, said that most lawyers were reluctant to file formal complaints despite long-standing allegations, making it difficult to resolve the problems.

He noted that a visible outcome of the reform initiatives would take time. ‘We need six to eight months to see results,’ said Muajjem, also an additional district judge deputed to the Supreme Court Registry.

Following a directive from the chief justice, an online complaint register was launched on September 26, 2024.

As of January 1, 2025, the Supreme Court administration received 33 complaints involving allegations of misconduct, bribery, negligence, and other irregularities. These include 12 complaints against judges of various district courts, three against staff of the High Court Division, 12 against district court employees, and six against lawyers.

The chief justice in his roadmap also said, ‘Any form of corruption must be eliminated.’

‘If heads of institutions—such as district judges, chief judicial magistrates, or designated judges—fail to prevent or act against corruption, it will amount to professional disqualification,’ the chief justice warned.

He also acknowledged receiving complaints about various irregularities within the Supreme Court.

‘I have heard disturbing reports about the affidavit section, dispatch, and copy sections,’ he said. ‘Such irregularities will not be tolerated.’

He added that he had already issued 12 directives aimed at improving service and eliminating irregularities, and emphasised that implementation would be strictly monitored.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

More needs to be done to end corruption in judicial system
16 June, 2025, 00:00

THE judicial system remains rampantly infested with irregularities, bribery and harassment despite a call of the chief justice for ensuring judicial accountability and rooting out corruption. Accounts of lawyers, as New Age reported on June 15, suggest that every stage of case procedures, from filing petitions to obtaining signed orders, is mired in such problems. The chief justice on September 21, 2024 said that corruption of court officials and lawyers’ clerks was damaging for the image of the judiciary in the public eye. The chief justice has also announced a policy of zero tolerance of any form of corruption, even in a judge’s private life, as it tarnishes the judiciary. Yet, the infestation continues, lowering the image of the judiciary, slowing down justice delivery and making people’s resorting to legal proceedings expensive. Accounts suggest that orders or verdicts are not typed unless bench officers are paid bribes. Sign orders cannot be obtained unless junior officials are given money. Section officials refuse to process certified copies unless the palm is greased. Without the hand being greased, dispatch section officials do not send court orders to recipients.New Age products

The amount of money paid off to make files fly and processes expeditious ranges from as low as Tk 100 to as high as Tk 20,000. Bribery and corruption have grown so ingrained in the system that many lawyers say that it has become almost impossible for them not to comply with the ‘informal system’ of bribery. Some allege that when they take up the issue with bar association leaders, they are told to ‘follow the system’, putting the failure to take action against bribery and harassment in court services down to the bar leaders. The registrar general of the Supreme Court, however, seeks to say that action cannot be taken without complaints being officially filed, noting that they remain vigilant and have so far internally investigated several cases. The reason for which the victims remain unwilling to file official complaints could, however, be anybody’s guess. And, this suggests that the grievance or complaints resolution mechanism that has failed to work, understandably in fear of reprisal. An online complaint register was launched on September 26, 2024 and as of January 1, 2025, 33 complaints of misconduct, bribery, negligence and other irregularities were filed. The chief justice, who has also acknowledged receiving complaints about the affidavit, dispatch and copy sections that he says are ‘disturbing,’ is reported to have issued several directives to eliminate irregularities.

The relevant authorities should, therefore, do more to end irregularities and bribery in the court system as the process that gives people legal redress should in no way remain corrupt.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Judicial reforms to mark ‘new dawn’ for Bangladesh: Yunus

UNB
Published :
Jun 22, 2025 21:35
Updated :
Jun 22, 2025 21:35

1750633422873.webp


Highlighting the importance of reforms in the judiciary, Chief Adviser Prof Muhammad Yunus on Sunday said these reforms, if fully implemented, will mark a 'new dawn' for Bangladesh, fulfilling the aspirations for which so many have sacrificed.

"Let us not dwell on the past obstacles. Instead, let us move forward, act decisively and realise the dreams of our martyrs by building a society of equality, dignity and liberty," he said, adding that ensuring an independent and efficient Judiciary will significantly advance these pursuits.

The Chief Adviser was speaking as the chief guest at a national seminar on 'Judicial, Independence and Efficiency' with Chief Justice Dr Syed Refaat Ahmed in the chair.

In order to safeguard the district judiciary from executive and political influence, Prof Yunus said steps have been taken to formulate rules for judicial transfers.

"The creation of a separate secretariat is a proposal that we cannot walk away from. A separate Secretariat would grant the judiciary the structural autonomy to adjudicate without external pressure," he said.

Prof Yunus said it is also commendable that as part of the reforms, the Supreme Judicial Council has been made fully operational, ensuring judicial accountability and independence.

He extended his heart full gratitude to the Chief Justice for leading these reforms. "His initiative in visioning and visiting every division of Bangladesh to garner support in inculcating a consensus has fostered a strong sense of ownership in the process, in all judicial officers and other stakeholders."

In this demanding work of reforming the judiciary, Prof Yunus said they have not been alone. "I'm very deeply grateful for the generous support provided by the European Union, the UK, UNDP, Sweden and our partners across the international community."

The Chief Adviser said the judiciary's leadership in driving this reform is truly inspiring. They are deeply committed to achieving an efficient and independent judiciary, and they look forward to its effective realization, he added.

"The fate of these crucial aspirations and initiatives depends entirely on our collective efforts. We must keep in mind that our actions during this significant period will echo through time, and we'll make it happen," said the Chief Adviser.

Prof Yunus said three magic words -- judiciary, independence and efficiency -- define the foundation of society, and the July uprising gave them the opportunity to build that civilization.

"And this is where we are, defining each step of that foundation.....nothing can work until we go back to these three words and establish them," he said.

Prof Yunus said this seminar is particularly timely and significant as it has been convened during a pivotal period of reform of Bangladesh.

"Every nation awaits a moment of transformation, an opportunity to mark a new beginning. This is our moment," he said, adding that this juncture does hold the key to a nation's future in human history and such opportunities are rare.

He said they have a long road ahead to fulfill the promises of the July uprising, and they bear an ingrained responsibility to honor this sacred memory of those who laid down their lives in the July uprising.

The Chief Adviser laid emphasis on ensuring justice for the heinous crimes against humanity committed during the months of July and August of 2024. "Today, the nation stands united in its determination to hold the perpetrators accountable."

He said they aim to create a just society where liberty, equality and dignity would guide all their actions.

The Chief Adviser said in considering reform initiatives, they must assess the effectiveness and credibility of various institutions and structures in shaping Bangladesh's future.

Law Minister Dr Asif Nazrul and Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman were, among others, present.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Judiciary must be freed from fascists: Salahuddin

UNB
Published :
Jul 03, 2025 21:09
Updated :
Jul 03, 2025 21:09


BNP Standing Committee member Salahuddin Ahmed on Thursday said the fascists and their allies must be ousted from the judiciary first in a bid to ensure the actual independence of the judiciary in the country.

“To make judicial independence truly effective, fascists must be ousted from the lower and upper judiciary,” he told reporters in the afternoon after the ninth day of the second round of reform dialogue at the Foreign Service Academy in the capital.

Salahuddin alleged that certain collaborators of fascist forces are still in the lower judiciary, who unlawfully punished political activists, journalists and people from all classes and professions through night court sessions. “We should not protect these fascists (judges) anymore. We want a judiciary -- both of the upper and lower tiers-- free from allies of the fascists,” he said.

He said job termination, transfer or departmental actions are sufficient against the allies of the fascists rather they will have to be tried for their individual criminal liability. “Their individual criminal liability must be fixed. It’s not enough to just terminate their jobs — they must also be held accountable and tried for their criminal offenses,” he added.

Only then, Salahuddin argued, can genuine judicial independence be implemented. “Otherwise, if these fascists remain in both tiers of the judiciary, they will continue to be the sole beneficiaries of whatever reforms we undertake to ensure the independence of the judiciary. That is our clear position.”

He warned that if the judiciary is run by them, even the strictest of laws will be misused. Many of these fascist collaborators — some involved in serious crimes, even crimes against humanity — are easily securing bail from the district level court to the High Court. These things (granting bails) are done by the allies of the fascists.

The BNP leader said they want a judiciary to be completely independent --constitutionally and legally-- and one whose benefits are enjoyed by the people. “But first, these fascists must be removed from the judiciary,” he said.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Consensus over setting up permanent HC bench in every division: Ali Riaz

UNB
Published: 03 Jul 2025, 20: 38

Political parties have reached a consensus on two key issues - setting up permanent High Court benches in every division and amending the presidential clemency provision, said Vice Chairman of the National Consensus Commission Prof Ali Riaz on Thursday.

"Today's dialogue saw significant progress. We achieved consensus on two issues," he said while briefing reporters in the afternoon after the ninth day of the second round reform dialogue at the Foreign Service Academy in the capital.

Profi Riaz said all political parties agreed that the judiciary should be decentralised and permanent benches of the High Court should be established in each of the eight divisions.

"It was agreed that one or more than one permanent benches of the High Court Division will be set up in the divisional level outside Dhaka," he said.


To this end, Ali Riaz said, the consensus came on amending Article 100 of the Constitution to facilitate this proposed judicial decentralisation.

About the presidential clemency provision under the Article 49 of the Constitution, Prof Riaz said the parties acknowledged the provision has long been misused for political purposes.

"All political parties recognised the need to revise the constitutional article and include a provision in the article that the presidential clemency power shall be applied in line with a new law."

The President shall apply the clemency power in the line with a law that will be enacted in the Parliament, Ali Riza said.

Under the proposed new framework, he said, the President's power to pardon would require consultation with the victims' families to ensure justice is not undermined.

Noting that the presidential clemency power was massively misused in the past, he said if this (proposal) is implemented, it will stop the misuse of the presidential authority.

Prof Riaz said another issue - the imposition of emergency - was on the agenda but was deferred as the National Coordination Council (NCC) is no longer at the discussion table.

"We will place the issue afresh before the political parties in the coming days," he said.

Citing that a significant progress was attained in Thursday's discussion, he said, "We're optimistic that we'll reach consensus on several more issues by next week."​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Reached a consensus on decentralisation of subordinate courts: Salahuddin

UNB
Published :
Jul 07, 2025 21:29
Updated :
Jul 07, 2025 21:29
Share this news

1751930363941.webp


BNP Standing Committee member Salahuddin Ahmed on Monday said there has been a consensus on decentralisation of subordinate courts, with all parties agreeing on specific directives for establishing courts at the upazila level.

Talking to journalists at the Foreign Service Academy in the capital following the National Consensus Commission's dialogue with political parties, Salahuddin highlighted the unified stance on this judicial reform.

"Certain issues regarding subordinate courts have been clearly defined," said Salahuddin Ahmed, adding, "For instance, there is no need to establish courts in upazilas that are part of district headquarters. Since those specific sadar upazilas can be integrated with the district judge courts located in the district headquarters that effectively establishes the upazila courts there."

He said that some upazilas in Bangladesh, which were once called 'chowkis' during the British period, as well as island and other selected areas, already had courts established.

"For upazilas located very close to district headquarters-say within 15 to 20 kilometres-given the improved state of communication, it becomes administratively burdensome to build new structures, provide housing for officers and staff, and maintain them. Therefore, based on a detailed survey, it has been recommended that no new courts be established in such upazilas," Salahuddin pointed out.

The BNP leader stated, "Factors such as the distance between upazilas, population density, economic conditions, communication facilities, and the number of pending cases in specific upazilas should be considered. Following a survey, a phased approach to establishing courts in all upazilas has been agreed upon."

On the issue of establishing permanent High Court benches in divisional cities, Salahuddin advised involving the judiciary.

The previous discussions on setting up permanent High Court benches in divisional cities were included in the Judicial Reform Commission's report, he said, suggesting that this matter should be discussed with and involve the judiciary.

"In 1988, a Supreme Court judgement declared the relevant constitutional amendment for such benches unconstitutional, and as a result, those benches were never established. To avoid repeating such complications in the future, we have recommended a solution be found in consultation with the judiciary, with both the National Consensus Commission and the government bearing responsibility," Salahuddin reminded.

Emergency Provisions

Salahuddin also addressed the issue of emergency powers in the Constitution, stating that Articles 141A, 141B, and 141C clearly define the President's authority to declare a state of emergency, the process for doing so, which fundamental rights may be suspended, how long it can last, and what must happen if Parliament is not in session.

He said, "The Consensus Commission has proposed adding two or three more clauses related to this. There have been detailed discussions on maintaining fundamental human rights during emergencies, especially in relation to international treaties and agreements with the United Nations."

"Our proposal is that the matter should be determined through a detailed debate in the National Parliament. This is a complex issue. Laws may be enacted under these constitutional provisions, and Parliament would be the appropriate forum for such considerations," Salahuddin explained.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

18 judges forced into retirement

The government yesterday sent 18 lower court judges into forced retirement.

A circular was issued in this regard by Branch-3 of the Judicial Division under the Law and Justice Division.

Of the judges, 15 are district and sessions court judges, two are additional district and sessions judges, and one is a joint district and sessions judge.

"As per the terms of service in the Bangladesh Judicial Service, as the members have completed 25 years, it has been decided, in consultation with the Bangladesh Supreme Court, to retire them from service in the public interest under the provisions of Section 45 of the Public Service Act, 2018," read the circular.

According to law ministry sources, it is the first time since August 5 last year that any lower court judge has been sent into forced retirement.

Most of the forced retired judges were serving as special judges in various districts and different tribunals.

Of them, Bikash Kumar Saha, district and sessions judge, Abu Zafar Md Kamruzzaman, district and sessions judge, Md Nurul Islam, additional district and sessions judge, and Mohammad Hossain, joint district and sessions judge, are currently attached to the Law and Justice Division in Dhaka.

The other judges are Sheikh Mofizur Rahman (district and sessions judge), Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal, Rajbari; Md Mahbubar Rahman Sarkar (district and sessions judge), Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal-1, Kishoreganj; Sheikh Golam Mahbub (district and sessions judge), Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal, Kushtia; Md Mojibur Rahman (district and sessions judge), Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal-1, Gaibandha; Md Ehsanul Haque (district and sessions judge), Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal, Bhola; Md Jewel Rana, (district and sessions judge), Jononirapotta Bighnokari Oporadh Domon Tribunal (Public Safety Disrupting Crimes Prevention Tribunal), Khulna; Md Monir Kamal (district and sessions judge), Cyber Tribunal, Sylhet; Shahidul Islam, special judge (district and sessions judge), Patuakhali; Al Mahmud Faizul Kabir, special judge (district and sessions judge), Dinajpur; Md Nazimuddoula, district and sessions judge, Tangail; AKM Mozammel Haque Chowdhury (district and sessions judge), Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal, Thakurgaon; Fazle Elahi Bhuiyan (district and sessions judge), Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal-3, Habiganj; Md Rustum Ali, member (district and sessions judge), Administrative Tribunal, Barishal; and AKM Enamul Karim, additional district and sessions judge, Patuakhali.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Money and power should never undermine justice

1752284684364.webp

FILE VISUAL: SALMAN SAKIB SHAHRYAR

There are stories that make you sick to your stomach, and then there are stories that remind you how little has actually changed in the country regarding women's safety, no matter who holds the reins of power.

The 2024 Subarnachar case is both.

Back in February last year, a woman and her 12-year-old daughter were gang-raped in their own home in Noakhali's Subarnachar upazila. Yes, a child—but I suppose by now, it comes as no surprise.

But instead of seeing the accused behind bars, we are now seeing the survivors being forced to leave their home amid death threats. They have been forced to sell everything and run—not because they are guilty, but because they dared to demand justice.

The prime accused is Abul Khair Munshi, a known local Awami League leader, who was arrested after the incident. However, he was released on bail in November and is now roaming free. Even though his party has been ousted, he roams confident enough to threaten his victims, confident enough to walk up to a survivor's face on court premises and threaten to kill them if they don't withdraw the case. And even after the survivor filed a general diary (GD) with Char Jabbar Police Station on January 19, the threats have not stopped.

The officer-in-charge of the station confirmed the filing of the GD. He also said that "primary investigation found the allegation to be true." Yet, after the last hearing on June 24, Munshi told the victim he has money, so the court verdict will go in his favour.

Think about what that means.

A man accused of gang-raping a woman and her minor child has so little fear of consequences that he can openly brag about buying justice. And why shouldn't he? The way our legal system works, money has often spoken louder than the law, and political connections have shielded even the most disgraceful crimes.

But here is the brutal truth no one seems ready to face: no party should ever matter when it comes to justice.

The Awami League's fall was supposed to symbolise a new era—one where ordinary people could hope for justice, where survivors would be heard. And yet here we are.

It seems that one member of the party still clings to enough influence to intimidate survivors, enough arrogance to believe his money will rewrite court verdicts, and to casually threaten families into exile.

What does that say about our so-called "new Bangladesh?"

The names change, the faces rotate, but the old system grinds on—fuelled by fear, influence, and political impunity. It just goes to show that no matter which flag someone waves, justice remains optional when money and muscle enter the room.

What makes this case even more dangerous is the silence around it. Where are the fiery speeches from the new champions of justice? Where is the accountability they promised? If the new leadership truly meant to clean house, Munshi would not dare to make a mockery of the legal system.

This is not about one family or one case. It is about every survivor who dares to stand up, only to be met with more violence, more threats, more reasons to regret speaking out. It is about the culture we breed, where victims flee their homes—just as the Muradnagar rape survivor had to leave due to pressure from so-called journalists—while the abusers flaunt their wealth and political ties, new or old.

The Subarnachar survivor did everything right. She reported the crime, pursued legal action, refused to stay silent. In return, she lost her home, her safety, her peace. Her child, already robbed of innocence, now lives with fear as a constant companion. Meanwhile, Munshi boasts about his influence, his money, and his expectation that verdicts can be bought like cheap commodities.

That justice for rape survivors is a mirage in this country is no news, with a miserable conviction rate of three percent in rape cases.

If the interim government is serious about reform, this is where they prove it. No political party, disgraced or not, should be able to shield criminals. No amount of money should tip the scales of justice. And no survivor should have to run for their life because the courts, the police, and the system itself refuse to protect them.

Until men like Munshi, and the myriad "politically powerful" rapists, are stripped of their influence, their protection, and their arrogance, all our promises of justice, change, and progress will remain exactly what they have always been—lip service full of empty words.

Naziba Basher is a journalist at The Daily Star.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Justice goes digital

FE
Published :
Jul 20, 2025 00:04
Updated :
Jul 20, 2025 00:04

1752971276113.webp


The Supreme Court's recent move to make company court proceedings fully digital is a much-needed step toward a more efficient and honest justice system. With paperless processes already introduced in one court and soon expanding to the other two courts that deal with company matters, it is clear there is a genuine commitment to using technology to make things better. Even today, handling disputes in court often involves endless paperwork, chasing after missing files, bureaucratic delays and, unfortunately, opportunities for unfair practices. Consequently, many people in the country take advantage of these loopholes and come to view and treat the law as a mechanism for prolonging disputes instead of resolving them. Digitising company courts as a solution to some of these long-standing problems may therefore prove to be not only effective but also a timely step toward bringing the delivery of justice into the modern age.

At the moment, just three High Court benches handle the legal affairs of more than three lakh registered companies in the country. These benches are overloaded with over 20,000 pending cases, along with other types of legal disputes they have to contend with. This creates a long wait for justice. Making matters worse, the traditional system is plagued by corruption at nearly every stage of the process. Whether it's getting a case onto the cause list, having an order typed or simply collecting a signed copy from the judge's chamber, bribes are often demanded at every turn. Shockingly, even the morning submission of hearing slips, approved by judges, often turns meaningless as bench officers allegedly drop cases from the day's list. Digitisation, in this context, could be a game-changer. When all case records and procedural steps are logged online, there is little room for tampering. Judges can then oversee case progress directly and keep tabs on the process in real time. On top of that, storing documents digitally eliminates the need for physical storage, thus saving valuable space. It would also reduce printing costs for both lawyers and clients.

This move toward digitisation should be just the beginning. If it works well in company courts which it should, it must be expanded to other parts of the judiciary including the lower courts where millions of cases remain stuck for years. As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied, and for far too long, delays and corruption have made people lose faith in the court system. That said, going digital alone would not solve the backlog problem. It can certainly make things run more smoothly and help reduce the delays, but with too few judges, the pile-up of cases won't simply go away. Only through the appointment of extra judges can the judiciary realistically expect to reduce the backlog and ensure timely dispensation of justice.

The drive for digitisation must go hand in hand with efforts to make justice more accessible by decentralising the courts. Many residents in remote areas struggle to attend proceedings in district-level courts, leading to delays and higher expenses. Gradually shifting lower courts to the upazila level and establishing High Court benches to every divisional headquarter could solve this issue by bringing justice closer to communities. This would save time, cut travel costs and make the legal system less intimidating for ordinary citizens. If people can bank on their phones and access healthcare in their villages, why should seeking justice require such long journeys? A court system that is both digital and decentralised can ensure a justice delivery process that is easier, faster and fairer for them.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Rules issued for vesting power upon SC to create judicial posts

BSS
Published :
Jul 30, 2025 23:26
Updated :
Jul 30, 2025 23:26

1753923450969.webp


Rules have been issued for creation of posts in the Judicial Service to a committee headed by a senior most judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (SC) but this power is not absolute and is subject to certain conditions and limitations.

“The secretaries from the public administration, finance, and law ministries will have to be represented in the committee to make recommendations regarding the creation of judicial posts,” Sheikh Abu Taher, the Secretary of the Law and Justice Division of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs informed this in a gazette notification on Monday last.

The notification, titled Judicial Service Formation Rules-2025, mentions the judicial and administrative posts of the Judicial Service as 'cadre' posts.

The judiciary will no longer need to seek approval from the public administration or finance ministries for creating new positions, it said.

The rules stated that members of the judicial service would be appointed in different posts of law and justice divisions.

The new formation rules clearly list the judicial and administrative posts under the Judicial Service, categorizing them separately to streamline the organizational structure.

New recruits will serve a two-year probationary period before confirmation of their service , subject to satisfactory performance, said the rules.

In cases of suspension, dismissal, or removal, the Bangladesh Judicial Service (Discipline) Rules, 2007, will be applicable, and consultation with the Supreme Court is mandatory.

Earlier, any judicial post was initially created for three years. Later, it was gradually made permanent based on the approval of others, including the public administration.

But now any post of judges will be created permanently. As a result, from now on, the judiciary will no longer have to approach the administration for the creation of posts of judges.

In addition, Article 115 of the Constitution gives the President the power to make separate rules regarding the officers performing duties in the judiciary.

In line with ‘the Masdar Hossain case verdict’ and the Constitution, the Bangladesh Judicial Service Formation Rules-2025 has been issued.

Meanwhile, Secretary General of the Bangladesh Judicial Service Association Muhammad Mazharul Islam said the formation of a committee in the creation of judicial posts is one of the most notable aspects of the rules.

“I believe that the institutional complexity in the creation of judicial posts in subordinate courts will be removed through these rules . . . The Judicial Service Formation Rules 2025 will be considered as a milestone in the institutional excellence of the Judiciary,” he added.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Judiciary’s call for independence no bid for hegemony: CJ
Staff Correspondent 10 August, 2025, 20:42

1754963547113.webp

Syed Refaat Ahmed | Collected photo

Chief justice Syed Refaat Ahmed on Sunday emphasised that the judiciary’s demand for an independent Supreme Court secretariat should not be read as a bid to grab power, but rather as part of a long-standing struggle for institutional parity with the executive and the legislature.

‘The call for independence does not stem from hegemonic ambition,’ the chief justice said, adding, ‘It arises from the need to function without undue influence. The historical record does not support the dystopian notion of the judiciary unilaterally imposing its will on the state.’

He was speaking at an event commemorating the contribution of former attorney general and senior BNP lawyer AJ Mohammad Ali held at the Supreme Court Bar Association auditorium.

The event was chaired by former High Court judge Md Sharifuddin Chaklader and attended by former speaker Mohammad Jamiruddin Sircar, attorney general Md Asaduzzaman as the special guest and senior lawyer Zainul Abedin as the chief discussant.

AJ Mohammad Ali, a prominent figure in Bangladesh’s legal history, died on May 2, 2024, following a prolonged battle with cancer.

Speakers at the event recalled Mohammad Ali’s contributions to the legal profession, including his role in many landmark cases.

One such case was a writ petition challenging the cancellation of BNP chair Khaleda Zia’s nomination for a national election — where Justice Refaat, then a High Court judge, ruled in favour of allowing her to contest, though his junior colleague on the bench dissented.

In his address, the chief justice firmly stated that judicial independence was not same as isolation. ‘It is a pillar of balanced democracy, not a threat to it,’ he said, stressing that the judiciary must be structurally empowered to safeguard its constitutional role.

‘For more than 50 years, the judiciary has remained the least dominant of the three equal co-branches of the state,’ he noted.

Yet, at times of constitutional crisis and political instability it has often been the only fully functional organ of the state. This does not reflect dominance, but resilience, he said.

‘The real dangers in the past came from unholy alliances — when a dominant executive co-opted a weakened judiciary,’ he said.

‘Those episodes, often facilitated by questionable rulings, were constitutional misadventures — not assertions of judicial independence.’

The chief justice argued that the demand for a separate secretariat was aimed at creating the institutional framework necessary to ensure judicial autonomy — not to sever cooperation with other branches.

To support this point, he cited the UK Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 as a model.

The Act, he said, introduced meaningful reforms without dismantling inter-branch collaboration. It replaced the Lord Chancellor’s role as intermediary, created a separate Supreme Court, and formed the Judicial Appointments Commission — all while preserving structured communication between the judiciary, executive, and legislature.

‘An empowered judiciary can still maintain engagement with its counterparts in the government,’ the chief justice said, referring to routine meetings between the UK’s Lord Chief Justice and the Prime Minister, consultations with the Chancellor, and appearances before parliamentary committees.

He also pointed to accountability mechanisms like the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman and the Judicial Investigations Office, which enhance internal oversight without compromising independence.

‘Institutional separation does not mean a breakdown of communication,’ he concluded. ‘It ensures that the judiciary can perform its constitutional duties with confidence — being free from influence, but never being detached from the state.’​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

The dream of an independent judiciary
It is near at hand, but can still slip away

1764898626912.webp

VISUAL: ANWAR SOHEL

Nothing reveals the story of why we failed to institutionalise democracy in Bangladesh better than our failure to build an independent judiciary. Though it is clearly stated in our constitution, it took us 53 years or so to lay its final foundation stone. What edifice we will build on this foundation lies in our future.

With so many things we have criticised the interim government for, the separation of the judiciary is one area where it deserves our praise. Without a separate secretariat under the authority of the chief justice—for which an ordinance has been recently issued—the judiciary would never have come out of the dominance of the executive branch, and especially of the law ministry, which resulted in the total destruction of the legal system in the country. Thanks are due to Prof Yunus, the head of the government, and Asif Nazrul, the law adviser. Praise must also be extended to the current chief justice, whose relentless work behind the scenes brought about the present reality.

What must not be overlooked is that none of our democratically elected governments—led by Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina—or the military governments of General Ziaur Rahman and General H M Ershad did anything to set up an independent judiciary.

Three events—one judgment (1999), one initiative by a caretaker government (Fakhruddin Ahmed, 2007), and another by the present interim government (Prof Yunus, 2025)—have finally removed all the legal hurdles and paved the way for the establishment of an independent judiciary.

In 1995, Md Masder Hussain, then a district judge, on behalf of 441 subordinate judges, lodged a petition challenging government control over recruitment, transfer, placement, promotion, etc of judges. On May 7, 1997, the High Court delivered a judgment with eight directives. The government appealed and the Appellate Division delivered a historic verdict on December 2, 1999, outlining 12 directives. The judgment recommended the creation of a separate judicial service; establishment of a judicial service commission; separate service rules under Article 115 of the constitution; a judicial pay commission; financial and administrative autonomy to reduce executive interference in the judiciary, etc. This was, however, not followed through properly.

In 2007, during the caretaker government headed by former Bangladesh Bank governor Fakhruddin Ahmed, the long-awaited steps to set up the Judicial Service Commission, the judicial service rules, and the Judicial Pay Commission were taken. On November 1, 2007, the caretaker government formally separated the lower judiciary from the executive, as a major part of implementing the 1999 Appellate Division verdict. But the dream of a full separation remained elusive.

On November 30, 2025, the current government issued the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance, formally establishing a separate secretariat for the judiciary, the most vital of steps for an independent judiciary.

So why did it take 53 years to do something so clearly spelt out in Part II of the constitution under the Fundamental Principles of State Policy, that "the State shall ensure the separation of the judiciary from the executive organs of the State"?

There are two basic reasons: first, our political culture of non-accountability and, second, a bureaucratic stranglehold that never allows the growth of independent institutions, especially those that can question their authority.

From the start, we favoured a powerful government and brought in a constitution in which the distribution of power among the three organs of the State—the legislature, judiciary, and executive—favoured the last. We misinterpreted Lincoln's dictum of a "government of the people, by the people and for the people" to mean that as long as a government is elected, whatever it does reflects the "will" of the people and must therefore be allowed a free hand in running public affairs. In forming a powerful government, we missed the chance for an accountable one.

As for the legislative branch, from the very start, we did not allow it to evolve as an independent institution. It has always acted as a rubber stamp of the majority party in parliament. The fact that we never separated the role of the Leader of the House from that of the head of government—the prime minister—brought the House directly under the control of the latter.

First in Pakistan and later in Bangladesh, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, founders of the two states respectively, chose to occupy the highest executive office. This made the legislature totally subservient to the head of government. In both Jinnah's and Mujib's cases, the same person held the positions of Leader of the House, head of the government, and head of their party. This did not provide the opportunity for the House to emerge with any real degree of independence. In Pakistan's case, Jinnah chose to be governor-general—the post that Lord Mountbatten had held—instead of being prime minister, as Nehru did in India, thus diminishing the prospect of the rise of a parliamentary system of government in Pakistan for which the struggles continue even today.

Mujib, on the other hand, opted to be prime minister—although he was president of the government-in-exile—and thereby shifted the focus to the elected House. However, he did not show the foresight to appoint a separate Leader of the House and a different party president. Combining the three posts—prime minister, leader of the House, and party chief—created a lethal convergence of power that inevitably led to centralisation in governance that proved disastrous and found its ultimate expression under Sheikh Hasina.

The role of the Speaker was always that of a lackey rather than an independent manager of parliamentary proceedings. If we examine the type of individuals who were "appointed" as Speakers, it becomes clear that none had either the personality or the intention to uphold the interests of the House above those of the ruling party, and especially the prime minister. Most of them owed their positions to the PM—in the case of Shirin Sharmin, the last of them, she was not even an elected MP but a chosen one from the reserved seats for women—and hence they tended to serve the chief executive rather than the highest seat of law-making.

As for elected MPs, they rarely gave importance to the voters who elected them after the polls. Instead, their allegiance shifted almost entirely to the party that nominated them. This was due to the perks, development funds, and various executive powers that came only from the ruling party and government, and not from voters, resulting in further erosion of the legislature.

It was the judiciary that had some chance of keeping the executive accountable, and hence everything was done to clip its wings in every way possible. Here, the role of bureaucrats was critical. Not only did they act on their own to subvert the rise of an independent judiciary, but they also advised politicians that such an institution would pose a threat to the government's freedom to act.

There is also the fact that members of the judiciary itself, both at junior and higher levels, contributed to its subservience. There is not a single instance of a judge resigning in protest against the misuse of the justice system. On the contrary, several examples show that the judiciary, far from resisting, actually welcomed executive interference. Through denial of bail, jailing dissenters, permitting the misuse of remand, not questioning the merit of frivolous cases at the very outset, and not upholding an individual's right to liberty and protection from legal harassment, members of the judiciary often allowed the executive to flaunt its power and intimidate the people. They conveniently, and sometimes self-servingly, forgot that the law exists for justice. When its application compromises justice, a judge must opt for justice, not an interpretation that serves the government over citizens.

The law, for example, clearly states that only one case may be lodged for a particular crime, yet dozens—sometimes hundreds—were permitted. Why did the judiciary never question this? When denying bail, the court rarely seems to reflect on the fact that a person's liberty, guaranteed by the constitution, is being taken away. The misuse of remand barely enters a judge's mind. The handling of cases involving political opponents of past governments stands as the most shameful abdication of the courts' role. Regrettably, elements of this pattern remain even today, which we hope will soon cease.

The instances of naming hundreds of accused and, in many cases, arresting them without a shred of evidence have reduced the image of the judiciary to that of an extension of government. The judiciary may argue that these are abuses by law enforcement agencies and fall outside its purview. But when the misuse and abuse of the law denigrate the judiciary as a whole, should it not publicly condemn such practices or urge the government to stop them? The higher judiciary, especially the chief justice, can and should express such views. The moral and ethical values of their profession oblige this role.

The point we wish to emphasise is that even after all the rules are passed and judicial independence is formally guaranteed, its actual implementation will require moral courage from judges themselves. They must adhere to the spirit of dispensing justice, rather than just mechanically interpreting the law, and certainly not serving the executive branch or the "privileged accused." Under various legal loopholes, cases remain pending for years. The misery this causes for the poor, ordinary people, and the amount of money and time they have to spend to appear at each hearing, seems to elicit little concern from our judges.

So, judges, especially those of the High Court and the Appellate Division, must always uphold the supremacy of the judiciary and never do anything that directly or indirectly denigrates this revered institution. We think the most shameful insult that the higher judiciary inflicted upon itself was when five Appellate Division judges stood on their knees instead of their feet in compliance with the wishes of the then prime minister to oust a sitting chief justice, SK Sinha. The reason? Because he refused, on constitutional grounds, to do what Sheikh Hasina wanted. Instead of standing with the chief justice, they declared that they would henceforth not work with him. The credibility and prestige of the Appellate Division stood shattered.

An immediate test of the coming elected executive will be how quickly and faithfully it passes into law the elements of judicial independence that have so far been put in place through ordinances. We also expect that future MPs will demonstrate greater respect for their voters, and not merely engage in habitual genuflection to their party, especially to its chief.

With the final guaranteeing of judicial independence, we hope this vital institution of modern civilisation will finally emerge with the glory and prestige it deserves by serving the people rather than the government of the day.

If the executive operates within its limits, the legislature—especially MPs— restrains itself to build a transparent and accountable governance framework instead of advancing partisan interests or chasing so-called development projects, and the judiciary truly distinguishes itself in the service of accountability and justice for all, especially the poor, then—and only then—will we have a real chance to build a genuine democracy in this beloved country of ours.

Mahfuz Anam is the editor and publisher of The Daily Star.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Bangladesh Judiciary has entered a ‘new institutional era’, says Chief Justice Refaat

bdnews24.com
Published :
Dec 06, 2025 19:48
Updated :
Dec 06, 2025 19:48

1765069610342.webp


Bangladesh’s judiciary has entered what the Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed has described as a “new institutional era”, marking a fundamental shift in how the justice system operates over the past 18 months.

Speaking at a seminar in Chattogram on Saturday, he said the transformation achieved through collective effort and constitutional clarity stands as a milestone in the country’s judicial history.

The seminar was organised jointly by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), according to a Supreme Court media statement.

Refaat said the reform roadmap he unveiled on Sept 21, 2024, has served as a guiding commitment to ensure full judicial independence and reinforce public confidence in the courts.

With the enactment of the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance 2025, the longstanding dual administrative structure has been removed, giving the Supreme Court full administrative and financial autonomy for the first time, he added.

He said this shift now allows the judiciary to make its own staffing decisions, draft, and manage its budget, design training programmes, and formulate policies that can carry judicial reforms forward in a sustainable and long-term manner.

The chief justice added that the business community had long sought a dedicated commercial court for faster and modern resolution of commercial disputes, a demand that is now on the verge of being realised.

He said a Supreme Court research team drafted the initial commercial court law, which was later refined through roadshows across the country, close engagement with BIDA, and inputs from business law experts and commercial stakeholders.

“The European Union also provided crucial technical support,” he added. “After further review by the law ministry, the draft is now final and received cabinet approval on the 4th of December.”

Refaat said the draft legislation contains a clear definition of commercial disputes, provisions for establishing an adequate number of commercial courts, a separate appeal bench in the High Court, mandatory mediation, limited adjournments, summary procedures, transparent data publication, and specialised training for judges and lawyers.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

A new chapter for judiciary

Published :
Dec 11, 2025 23:55
Updated :
Dec 11, 2025 23:55

1765500414740.webp


Bangladesh's judiciary is poised to enter a new era of institutional independence and operational efficiency with the promulgation of the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance 2025-a long-anticipated reform that grants the Supreme Court financial and administrative autonomy. This landmark measure fundamentally reshapes how the judicial system is managed, funded and supervised, removing decades-old constraints that tied the apex court's operations to the executive branch. Issued by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs on November 30, pursuant to a presidential order, the Ordinance follows the interim government Advisory Council's approval of the draft on November 20. Its core objective is to establish a separate Supreme Court Secretariat empowered to perform supervisory and disciplinary functions over the subordinate courts. More importantly, it aims to reinforce the independence of the judiciary-an essential pillar of democratic governance.

The Ordinance rests on a simple but powerful premise: true judicial independence is inseparable from financial autonomy. When an institution as crucial as the highest court of law depends on another arm of government for its budgetary and administrative needs, a degree of subordination becomes inevitable. Such dependence not only undermines the spirit of judicial independence but also restricts the institution's ability to function promptly and effectively.

Until now, the budget of the judiciary was prepared by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and the Supreme Court registry received only a consolidated allocation for routine expenditures. Even these funds often remained underutilised due to bureaucratic delays and approval bottlenecks. For example, in FY25 the registry received Tk 2.52 billion, and Tk 2.50 billion in FY26, but could not fully utilise either allocation because of slow approval processes and procedural constraints. These delays affected administrative efficiency, hampered development initiatives and diminished the court's capacity to respond to the increasing demands of justice delivery. The new Ordinance directly addresses these long-standing challenges. Section 11(7) unambiguously states that no prior government approval will be required for expenditures from funds allocated to the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court Secretariat under the national budget. This provision alone marks a decisive shift away from the dual administration system that has historically constrained the judiciary's autonomy. Equally significant is the empowerment of the chief justice to approve up to Tk 1.0 billion for development and non-development projects for the judiciary, without seeking clearance from the Executive Committee of the National Economic Council (ECNEC) or the Finance Division. This streamlines administrative processes, reduces dependence on the executive and allows the judiciary to manage its affairs with greater responsiveness and accountability.

Chief Justice Dr Syed Refaat Ahmed has rightly hailed the Ordinance as "the most decisive institutional breakthrough", calling it "a single legal instrument that has finally lifted the long-standing constraints of dual administration in the judiciary." His remarks capture the transformative significance of the reform. The Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance 2025 thus marks a major step towards a more robust, independent and efficient judiciary-one better equipped to uphold the rule of law and meet the evolving aspirations of the people.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Post-July 2024 efforts at revamping judiciary

FE
Published :
Dec 17, 2025 00:53
Updated :
Dec 17, 2025 00:53

1765930916401.webp


Bangladesh's judicial system has faced many challenges since the country's in dependence. The 1972 Constitution, for instance, established a Supreme Court and formally adopted the principle of the separation of the judiciary from the executive organs of the state. The development of the judiciary henceforth can be marked by some major changes. In 1975, the parliamentary structure country was replaced by presidential rule through the Fourth Amendment to the 1972's constitution. The move significantly curtailed independence of the judiciary and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over enforcement of fundamental rights. The darkest chapter of the country's judicial history was the last 16 plus years when the judiciary was turned into a tool of coercion in the hands of country's autocratic regime.

The July 2024's upsurge and the political changeover that ensued saw efforts to revamp the judiciary and ensure its independence from the executive organ of the state. Notably, following the assumption of office by the interim government on August 8, 2024, the judiciary witnessed some positive developments. In this connection, on August 11, 2024, Dr Syed Refaat Ahmed was sworn in as the 25th Chief Justice of Bangladesh. Since then, he undertook certain steps to reform the judiciary. He is set to retire on December 27, 2025. Against this backdrop, on the eve of his retirement, the Chief Justice on December 14, reportedly, delivered his farewell address to the district judges, metropolitan sessions judges, chief judicial magistrates and chief metropolitan magistrates at the Supreme Court auditorium. There he dwelt at length on the measures he undertook during his tenure in office to revamp the country's judicial system. Especially, the points he highlighted are learnt to have included the reforms measures undertaken over the past one and a half years to implement the roadmap for judicial reform and overall development that was initiated. The other subjects that his farewell address to the judicial officials of the country, reportedly, included the ongoing judicial reforms, the expansion of technology-based services, improving the professional skills of judicial officers, ensuring transparency in court operations, enhancing the efficiency of lower court judges, facilitating easier access to justice for citizens, and providing key guidance to reduce case backlogs.

Notably, after taking office as the chief justice, he announced a historic roadmap for judicial reforms for all judicial officers. The roadmap outlined establishing a separate secretariat for the judiciary, drafting specific laws for judicial appointments in higher courts, creating specialized courts for the judiciary, preventing corruption, and implementing various other reforms. Over the past one and a half years, multiple reforms have been carried out in line with the roadmap. Evidently, the focus of measures undertaken has been to ensure that the judiciary can play its due role as the guardian of the constitution upholding peace, order, and fair rules for everyone, regardless of power or wealth. Having said that it would also be worthwhile to recall the not-so-envious role the judiciary played during the autocracy that had definitely been a blot on the nation's judicial landscape.

Notably, the Chief Justice, too, did not mince words, but was rather scathing in his observation about the role the judiciary sometimes played during certain political periods. During those times the judiciary was perceived as an undeclared accomplice to the unconstitutional exercise of power and misrule. Undeniably, in Bangladesh's progress, many distinguished judges earned deep respect through their wisdom, sense of sacrifice and moral courage. Yet, at times some judges have directly or indirectly sheltered misrule and participated in the acts of injustice. It is believed the hard work that has gone behind reforming the judiciary and establishing its independence during the rather short tenure of the outgoing Chief Justice in his office has been worth the effort. Let us hope, henceforth, the judiciary would strive to become, as the maxim goes, the last hope of the common man.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Cite Fact Check Highlight Respond

Members Online

Latest Posts

Latest Posts