Divisional HC bench for free judicial secretariat
Staff Reporter :
Bangladesh’s long-awaited judicial reform efforts have once again ignited fierce debate this time over a contentious plan to establish permanent High Court Division benches in the country’s divisional cities.
While advocates argue this would make justice more accessible for millions living far from the capital, many of the country’s senior jurists warn the move risks clashing with constitutional safeguards and undermining the Supreme Court’s unified authority.
The proposal is part of 28 recommendations recently submitted by the Judicial Reform Commission, chaired by Ali Riaz, to the Chief Adviser.
At its core, the plan seeks to decentralise justice delivery by setting up permanent High Court benches outside Dhaka, aiming to tackle a backlog of more than half a million pending cases and ease the burden on litigants from remote districts.
Yet the idea has triggered strong resistance within Bangladesh’s legal fraternity.
Many point to Article 100 of the Constitution, which clearly states: “The permanent seat of the Supreme Court shall be in the capital…” Although the Chief Justice may, with presidential consent, hold court sessions elsewhere, senior lawyers argue that establishing permanent benches outside Dhaka would directly violate the spirit of this constitutional safeguard.
Veteran Supreme Court lawyer Ahsanul Karim warned, “If permanent benches are set up in divisional cities, the High Court Division could be reduced to the level of a magistrate’s court losing its institutional authority and the public’s trust as the final guardian of justice.”
His concerns are widely echoed. Many fear decentralisation could expose the judiciary to local political influence, threatening its impartiality and independence.
These warnings are not without precedent. In 1988, a constitutional amendment created six permanent High Court benches outside Dhaka. But the following year, the Appellate Division, led by then Chief Justice Badrul Haider Chowdhury, struck down the amendment as unconstitutional.
Recalling that landmark ruling, Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Barrister A M Mahbub Uddin Khokon told reporters at a 9 July press briefing, “The apex court cancelled the Eighth Amendment.
Any new plan for permanent benches must respect that ruling or formally overturn it first.”
Tensions surrounding the issue came to a head on 7 July when hundreds of lawyers staged a protest rally on the Supreme Court premises. Protesters branded the divisional bench proposal “unconstitutional” and warned it could weaken the Supreme Court’s authority.
“Where will you find enough competent lawyers outside Dhaka?” one senior advocate demanded at the rally.
“There is already a shortage of experienced counsel in divisional cities. Spreading the High Court too thin will only lower its quality.”
On Monday, lawyers staged another protest rally within the Supreme Court compound, denouncing the move as a conspiracy to weaken the judiciary.
Among those addressing the rally were Advocate Mahbubur Rahman Khan, Barrister Moksedul Islam, Advocate Maksud Ullah, Barrister Rabiul Islam Saikat, Barrister Ashraf Rahman, and Advocate Jasim Uddin.
A large number of lawyers joined the demonstration, vowing to resist any attempt to establish permanent divisional benches.
Meanwhile, Supreme Court lawyer Saiful Islam submitted a formal petition to the Chief Justice on the same day, urging the apex court not to approve any plan for permanent divisional benches.
In his written appeal filed with the High Court Division’s Registrar (Judicial) Office – Islam outlined five key objections:
1. Constitutional Conflict: Under Article 100, the Supreme Court’s permanent seat must remain in the capital. While temporary sessions may be held elsewhere, a permanent relocation would breach the constitutional spirit.
2. Inconsistent Law Application: Different regional benches could lead to variations in verdicts and legal interpretations, undermining the Supreme Court’s uniform authority.
3. High Costs and Complexity: Ensuring adequate infrastructure, staff, security, and judges across divisions would be costly and logistically challenging, wasting state resources.
4. Risk of Local Influence: Local political or social pressure could influence divisional benches, eroding public confidence in the judiciary’s independence.
5. Impact on Dhaka Caseload: Diverting judges to divisional cities could worsen case backlogs in Dhaka instead of solving them.
Islam’s petition concludes with a respectful appeal to the Chief Justice: “In light of these points, I humbly request that no step be taken to permanently relocate High Court Division benches to divisional cities.”
Beyond the constitutional debate, many legal experts argue the more urgent need is genuine administrative independence for the judiciary starting with a separate Judicial Secretariat.
Barrister Khokon remarked, “It’s been almost a year and we still do not have an independent Judicial Secretariat. Without it, who will protect the independence of these new benches? Reform must start there not with risky decentralisation.”
Experts widely agree that a separate Judicial Secretariat would help insulate the courts from executive interference and bureaucratic pressure, giving judges the freedom to uphold justice impartially.
Proponents maintain that for millions living far from Dhaka, the cost and burden of travelling to the capital for justice is deeply unfair. Regional benches, they say, would bring the courts closer to ordinary people.
But critics argue that any gains could be undone by inconsistent verdicts, jurisdictional confusion, and the creeping influence of local politics. While Article 100 allows the Chief Justice to hold temporary sessions outside Dhaka, permanent benches, they warn, would split the court’s seat – and with it, its authority.
“When you split the court’s seat, you split its authority,” said International Crimes Prosecutor Abdus Sattar Palowan. “The High Court must stay above local politics or it risks losing its role as the people’s final refuge for justice, no matter who is in power.”
Most scholars, senior lawyers, and rights advocates agree: Bangladesh’s courts desperately need reform from clearing case backlogs and trial delays to curbing corruption and political patronage in judicial appointments. But many insist that simply expanding courtrooms will not rebuild trust.
Senior lawyer Advocate Ruhul Quddus Kajol summed it up: “The spirit of reform must be moral and constitutional. We should not be obsessed with moving buildings we must transform mindsets.
Judges and lawyers must uphold al-‘adl justice as a divine principle.”
On 14 July, the Attorney General informed the High Court that the government supports setting up a separate Judicial Secretariat – a long-promised measure that many believe must come first.
In a statement this week, the Chief Justice urged policymakers not to miss this historic chance to secure the judiciary’s sustainable independence for generations to come.
For now, the legal community and the public wait for answers. Will the government move forward with the divisional bench plan despite constitutional challenges and historic precedent? Or will it heed the calls of jurists, lawyers, and civil society to prioritise the long-promised Judicial Secretariat the reform many say is truly needed to protect the court’s authority and independence?