Concerns mount over judicial independence after repeal bills
Jurists, former judges, and legal experts have expressed serious concern over the implications of repealing legal provisions related to the Supreme Court Secretariat and judicial appointments, warning that the move could steer the country towards a constitutional and institutional crisis.
The concerns were voiced at a discussion titled “Fifty-five Years Since the Repeal of Supreme Court Secretariat and Judicial Appointment Laws: How Far Has Independence Come?”, held on Saturday morning at the National Press Club in Dhaka. The event was organised by the human rights organisation Humanity Foundation in collaboration with the Ain O Bichar journal.
Presiding over the session, Muhammad Shafikur Rahman, Chairperson of Humanity Foundation and editor of Ain O Bichar, warned that repealing the ordinances could hinder democratic development and foster authoritarian tendencies. He said the judiciary might increasingly be used to suppress dissent, undermining public trust in the justice system.
Appellate Division Justice Abdul Matin, speaking as the chief guest, said that extensive amendments to the Constitution over time have made comprehensive reform inevitable. He argued that if mass uprisings are not recognised as legitimate, many decisions taken during interim governments would lose their legal validity, potentially calling into question the legitimacy of the current administration.
Highlighting the historical context, Justice Matin said that the demand for judicial independence dates back to the United Front government of 1954 and is not limited to recent decades. He cautioned that any retreat from this demand would represent a significant setback.
He further alleged that by repealing the ordinances, the government had effectively abandoned the spirit of the July Charter. Warning of public backlash, he said that a population capable of removing authoritarian leadership could also challenge the present government if it continues on what he described as a self-defeating course.
Criticising recent actions within the judiciary, he said issuing show-cause notices to 28 judicial officers was counterproductive and questioned the legality of notices served for expressing views on judicial matters. He also commented on the President’s remarks about acting under pressure, suggesting that such circumstances could raise serious constitutional questions.
Former district judge Masdar Hossain said that instead of strengthening legal institutions, the repeal risks pushing the country backwards. He criticised what he described as a culture of political dominance within Parliament and warned that upcoming judicial appointments could prioritise political considerations over merit.
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Barrister Ehsan A. Siddiq said the repeal could have long-term consequences, including reopening political controversies in the future. He accused the government of misusing its authority, though he expressed cautious optimism about the possibility of reform.
Barrister Hasan Tariq Chowdhury alleged that successive governments have sought to maintain control over the judiciary to protect entrenched economic interests. He warned that efforts to centralise control over lower court judges’ promotions and transfers would further erode judicial independence.
Barrister Omar Faruk questioned the public benefit of repealing ordinances that had been enacted in line with Supreme Court directives. He warned that if the current trajectory continues, the country could face an even more severe crisis in the years ahead.
Dr Mohammad Sajjad Hossain, a former joint district judge, described the repeal as a move that could ultimately backfire on the government. He stressed that the struggle for judicial independence has been long and ongoing, and criticised structural political influences that discourage neutrality within the judiciary.
Representing the July student movement, Arif Sohel said the judiciary’s conduct during political upheavals had reflected excessive reliance on the executive branch. He argued that repealing the ordinances contradicts the spirit of reform and called for a complete overhaul of the colonial-era legal system.
In his closing remarks, Shafikur Rahman warned that the repeal could increase political influence over judicial appointments, weaken institutional accountability, and deepen public distrust in the justice system. He added that honest and competent judges might face harassment, damaging morale and hindering the development of a professional and independent judiciary.
Speakers at the event broadly agreed that protecting judicial independence remains essential to ensuring democratic governance and upholding the rule of law in Bangladesh.
