On the 29th July, 2008 the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh stayed the order of the High Court Division on appointing ten former judges, who were illegally sacked, according to a verdict passed by the High Court Division of the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division passed this order following a provisional petition seeking a stay order on the verdict lodged by the government on the 24th July and granted the government three weeks to file a regular petition seeking permission to appeal against the High Court verdict.
The New Age, a Dhaka-based English daily, reports in its Wednesday’s (30 July) online edition that, 15 out of 40 additional judges, who were recruited during the Awami League regime, did not get permanent appointments during the (Bangladesh Nationalist Party) BNP-led government between 2001 and 2003, although 14 of them were recommended by the Chief Justice for permanent appointments. Amongst the 14 sacked additional judges ten lodged a writ petition with the High Court Division on 4th February 2003 challenging the government’s decision and requesting the reinstatement of their judicial positions.
On 17th July, 2008 the High Court Division ordered the Government to appoint the sacked ten judges within a month with retrospective seniority in the Supreme Court. A Special High Court Bench comprising of Justice MA Rashid, Justice SK Sinha and Justice Nazmun Ara Sultana passed the order. In the verdict the Court declared the President’s action was unconstitutional in not appointing the additional judges as permanent judges, ignoring the recommendations made by the Chief Justice in this regard.
On 27th July, 19 sitting judges of the High Court Division, who were recruited after the removal of the said ten judges, lodged another petition with the Appellate Division challenging the High Court verdict. On 29th July, the full Court of five judges of the Appellate Division, chaired by the Chief Justice M Ruhul Amin, heard the petitions of the Government and the 19 sitting judges of the High Court that challenged the High Court verdict.
Defending the High Court verdict, Barrister M Amir-ul Islam, the counsel of the sacked judges, argued that the government should have no right to appeal against the verdict as it did not contest the writ petitions and filed no reply to the rules issued by the High Court. He said, “Already the case has suffered a delay of about five years, causing mischief to the ten former additional judges. The government now sought stay on the verdict only to delay further the appointments.”
Referring to the High Court’s order to appoint the sacked judges with retrospective seniority, the Attorney General Mr. Salahuddin Ahmed sought specific guidelines along the line of whether such retrospective seniority will affect the sitting judges or not.
Mr. TH Khan, counsel for the 19 sitting judges, argued that the seniority of sitting judges would have been jeopardized and prejudiced if the ten former additional judges were appointed as permanent judges with retrospective seniority.
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) observes that this case itself is a consequence of the culture of politically motivated interference in the judicial procedure in Bangladesh. It appears that the rulers of the country hardly considered the legality to recruit and remove the judges, aiming to politicize the judiciary. The appeals against the High Court verdict appear to be another attempt to validate these perverted actions.
The case also reflects the prolonged justice delivery system even in an issue relating to the highest judiciary itself.
The AHRC urges the professionals, especially the lawyers, journalists and the civil society to initiate constructive debates in compliance with the ethical and moral norms and standards to stop the recurrence of such interferences by the executive authorities in the judiciary in future.
