In our view the confrontation between the government and the judiciary is self-destructive for the government and that must stop. It was a political move motivated by those who wanted autocracy to succeed and not the people’s government.
Nobody will deny that an aggrieved party can apply to the Supreme Court praying expungement of objectionable observations, if any.
But it will be interesting to know about the list of objectionable observations the Law Ministry will place for expungement.
What needs to be reminded is that the Supreme Court was forced to react to the unsavoury and contemptuous remarks made against the Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court earlier. The Supreme Court was even denied its very independence. So the judges of the Supreme Court with the support of the constitutional experts were compelled to assert their strength as the guardian of the Constitution.
On the floor of the Parliament, one member was arrogant enough to demand the judges to come to the Parliament to explain how the provision for impeachment of the judges was unconstitutional. One senior minister showing how knowledgeable he is said defiantly, more than once, that judiciary could not override the Parliament. His claim was that the same law will be passed again and again to show how far the judges of the Supreme Court can go. As a bureaucrat, he has shamelessly exposed his addiction for power.
There are many MPs and some other ministers who were boastfully claiming for the Parliament to be sovereign and all powerful. So the Parliament must prevail over the Supreme Court. If this is not ignorance then what is.
It is common knowledge that most of the members of the Parliament are more businessmen than politicians with no political commitment and no knowledge about the Constitution. If they are considered immature for their stubborn utterances on the judgement of the Supreme Court will it be far wrong?
One has to understand that as the protector of the Constitution the Supreme Court is under a sacred duty given by the sovereign people to ensure that respect for the people-given Constitution is duly shown by those in the government as the representatives of the people.
Not many of the businessmen politicians know that the people’s Constitution is a mandate from the people for good governance. If this much is not understood about the constitutional obligation then the Supreme Court has rightly expressed its legitimate concern about the unrestrained looting of public wealth and arrogance of power violating human rights.
What is important is that the judges have said nothing new and not discussed in public domain.
Not knowing the reality that a constitutional government is not an unrestrained government, the men in the government must have the knowledge about limitations on their power and obligations under the Constitution. The Supreme Court as the guardian of the Constitution has to protect the need of good governance. So to treat the Supreme Court judges as nobody by those who claim to be the people’s representatives should be ashamed.
A constitutional government is not a one man affair. So there is nothing wrong for the judges of the Supreme Court to say that no one man can create a nation or build a country.
We need not be reminded that Bangabandhu is the Father of the Nation but that does not mean that the Liberation War not the people’s war or a country or nation can be built by one man.
We need mature and competent political leadership to organise good governance collectively with the legislature and the judiciary as mandated by the Constitution. It is not constitutional to treat the Parliament or the judiciary as a rubber stamp.
Destroying the checks and balances provided under the Constitution will not salvage the government from its awful incompetence and rampant corruption in managing the public affairs.
The judgement of the Supreme Court, if could be taken and understood in its rightful spirit, can save the government as the people’s government anxious to serve the people.
