Judiciary risks return of political influence
Allegations of political interference in judicial proceedings and appointments have long dogged Bangladesh’s judiciary, raising questions about its independence and credibility.
The repeal of two key ordinances introduced during the interim government to reform judicial appointments and establish a separate Supreme Court Secretariat has now renewed fears that political influence could once again take hold of the judicial system.
Judiciary will not remain independent following the repeal of the SC Judicial Appointment Ordinance, 2025.
Badiul Alam Majumder
The opposition and legal experts have warned that the parliamentary move could undermine judicial autonomy by restoring the scope for executive influence over the appointment and administration of judges.
During the Awami League regime, several judicial decisions and proceedings, including the verdict on the 16th Amendment, corruption cases against opposition leaders, war crimes trials and cases filed under the Digital Security Act, attracted allegations of political interference and the politicisation of the judiciary.
In an effort to insulate the judiciary from political influence, the interim government introduced the Supreme Court Judges’ Appointment Ordinance in 2025 to establish a transparent mechanism for recommending suitable candidates for appointment to the Appellate and High Court divisions.
The ordinance provided for the formation of a Supreme Judicial Appointment Council, headed by the chief justice, to assess candidates on merit, competence and integrity.
It was the first time in Bangladesh that a specific legal framework had been introduced to regulate the appointment of Supreme Court judges through an independent selection mechanism.
Another ordinance established a separate Supreme Court Secretariat to strengthen the judiciary’s administrative autonomy, particularly in relation to the supervision and control of subordinate courts.
However, on 9 April this year, Parliament passed the Supreme Court Judges’ Appointment (Repeal) Bill and the Supreme Court Secretariat (Repeal) Bill by voice vote, despite strong objections from opposition lawmakers.
With the repeal of the ordinances, the new appointment and administrative arrangements will cease to remain in force, taking the judiciary back to the constitutional framework that existed before the reforms.
Speaking to The New Nation, former chief of the Election Reform Commission Badiul Alam Majumder said the repeal would expose the judiciary to the risk of politicisation and weaken its independence.
“There will be a risk of politicisation, and the judiciary will not remain independent following the repeal of the Supreme Court Judicial Appointment Ordinance, 2025,” he said.
Badiul stressed that a separate secretariat and an independent institutional structure were essential to protect judicial autonomy.
“With Parliament repealing these bills, we will have to return to the old system, and a vital branch of the government will remain at risk of being politicised,” he added.
The debate over judicial independence has deep roots in Bangladesh’s constitutional history.
In 1999, the Appellate Division delivered its landmark verdict in the Secretary, Ministry of Finance versus Masdar Hossain case, establishing the principle of separating the judiciary from the executive.
Following the court’s directives, the separation was finally implemented in 2007 under the caretaker government.
The subordinate judiciary was brought under the control of the Supreme Court, ending the executive branch’s direct authority over judicial appointments, postings and disciplinary matters.
Despite this institutional separation, concerns over political influence have continued, particularly in the appointment of higher court judges and the extent of executive control over judicial administration.
Masdar Hossain, the plaintiff in the landmark case, expressed concern over Parliament’s decision during an open discussion on 11 April, questioning the legislature’s approach to repealing laws introduced to strengthen democratic institutions. “The National Parliament is not sovereign,” he said.
“Sitting in the seat of power, they are repealing all ordinances with the stroke of a pen. If laws are enacted to maintain peace and order in the country, Parliament must ensure that.”
Referring to the victims of enforced disappearances during the previous regime, he urged the government not to betray the sacrifices made in the struggle against authoritarianism.
“Those who once counted the days fearing death due to enforced disappearances are now Members of Parliament. Ask them to define what ‘disappearance’ means. You did not come to power out of nowhere. Do not betray their blood,” he warned.
Rabiul Islam, dean of the Faculty of Law and Justice at Jahangirnagar University, also warned that judicial independence was at risk following the repeal of the two ordinances.
He said the appointment of judges must be transparent to prevent political considerations from influencing the selection process.
Although the Constitution already provides for the appointment of Supreme Court judges, the existing framework was not particularly robust, he observed.
“If these ordinances had been implemented, they could have helped ensure greater judicial independence,” he said.
Rabiul also emphasised the importance of a separate Supreme Court Secretariat in ensuring transparency and accountability in judicial administration.
“A separate secretariat would reduce dependence on the Ministry of Law. However, with the repeal of these ordinances, such reforms are no longer possible,” he added.
Constitutional provisions and interim reforms
Article 95 of the Constitution provides that the president appoints Supreme Court judges after consulting the chief justice.
However, Article 48(3) stipulates that, except for the appointment of the prime minister and the chief justice, the president must act in accordance with the prime minister’s advice in exercising presidential functions.
The Constitution also sets out the qualifications for appointment to the Supreme Court. A candidate must be a Bangladeshi citizen and must have either served as an advocate of the Supreme Court for at least 10 years, held judicial office for at least 10 years, or possess other qualifications prescribed by law.
The Supreme Court Judges’ Appointment Ordinance, 2025, sought to introduce an independent and merit-based mechanism within this constitutional framework.
Under the ordinance, the Supreme Judicial Appointment Council was tasked with assessing and recommending candidates for appointment to the Appellate and High Court divisions based on their professional competence, efficiency and integrity.
The separate Supreme Court Secretariat was intended to strengthen the institutional independence of the judiciary, particularly in the supervision, control and discipline of subordinate courts.
Under its provisions, decisions concerning the posting, promotion, transfer, disciplinary action and leave of judicial officers would come under the Secretariat’s jurisdiction.
The chief justice would exercise overall control over the Secretariat, while a secretary would serve as its administrative head.
With Parliament repealing the relevant ordinances, these arrangements will no longer remain in force.
Opposition lawmakers have alleged that the government is seeking to restore political influence over the lower judiciary at the expense of judicial autonomy.
Law Minister Md Asaduzzaman, however, said the government remained committed to ensuring full judicial independence.
He said it planned to introduce a more comprehensive law on the matter after further review and consultation.
Earlier, on 25 September 2025, former chief justice Dr Syed Refaat Ahmed described the Supreme Court Judges’ Appointment Ordinance, 2025, as a landmark piece of legislation.
He noted that it had, for the first time in Bangladesh’s history, established a Supreme Judicial Appointment Council, an independent collegium entrusted with recommending candidates solely on the basis of merit, competence and integrity.
