16th amendment illegal: SC

[Banglar Bir]

Annulment of 16th amendment ensures judicial independence
Faruque Ahmed

Democratic institutions and rule of law are under pressure world over from right wing or ultra left political establishments—either in power or outside power—as their leaders are blindly trying to establish absolute control over national institutions to hold authoritarian power on the people.
The latest three examples are USA, Poland and no less Bangladesh. Moreover Venezuela is in total chaos at the moment as socialist President Nicolas Madura is trying to hold his grip on power ignoring opposition controlled parliament to play a role in running the country.

Egypt is another example where parliament and judiciary run basically derives power from military rulers. Attack on democracy and rule of law is on rise almost everywhere.

Bangladesh Supreme Court only recently scrapped the 16th amendment to the constitution which had earlier in 2014 empowered parliament to impeach Supreme Court Judges blamed for misconduct and inability to run office. It replaced the Supreme Judicial Council to remove judges with the reported intent to send message to the judges that their disloyalty to the government may end up losing their jobs.

The situation in Bangladesh proved otherwise where the decision of parliament dictated by the Prime Minister is the last word and the President is just expected to put his seal whether or not it reflects the aspiration of the people.

The most inspiring fact is that Bangladesh Supreme Court did the job scrapping the controversial amendment which seemed to be a sword of Damocles hanging over them. However the parliament lost its authority to impeach any apex court judge as the Supreme Court upholding a previous High Court verdict that declared illegal the 16th amendment of the constitution.

A seven-member bench of the Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha unanimously declared the amendment illegal, dismissing a government appeal. Announcing the short verdict, the chief justice said they dismissed the appeal unanimously with some findings – after hearing the arguments for and against the appeal for over 11 days. Now the Supreme Judicial Council, which was repealed through the amendment, will be restored for impeaching any judge.
The parliament had passed the amendment in September 2014, repealing the provision of the Supreme Judicial Council that had been empowered to probe allegations against judges and recommend removal.The original constitution of 1972 had empowered parliament to remove SC judges. But the fourth amendment to the constitution in January 1975 bestowed the authority on the president by abolishing the parliament’s power.Many believe it will remain a landmark judgment in the country’s constitutional history and rule of law.

Nine senior lawyers who along with three others were appointed amici curiae by the Supreme Court to give their opinions on the 16th Amendment to the Constitution establishing parliament’s power to remove SC judges suggested annulment of the amendment. On the other hand, one amicus curiae—Barrister Ajmalul Hossain QC —- talked in favour of the amendment while two others —- Barrister Rafiqul Haque and ex-Law Minister Barrister Shafique Ahmed – did not place any deposition.
The nine amici curiae recommended upholding the High Court order declaring the 16th Amendment to the Constitution illegal. The scrapping immediately prompted acrimonious debate in parliament where some senior law makers denounced the verdict saying being elected by people and in the light of the basic structure of the 1972 constitution that said only parliament can impeach judges, they will not cede their power to impeach judges. They are not obliged to accept the verdict as various national dailies reporting on parliament debate said the following day.
The Supreme Court verdict was however candid when it said impeaching judges of higher judiciary by a unicameral parliament is dangerous since MPs can’t vote outside party guideline. It could have been befitting for a bi-cameral parliament.

President Andrzej Duda vetoed in people’s favour
Poland faced a similar situation in recent past. In a move the ultra-nationalist Polish parliament had amended the constitution that empowered law makers to approve recruitment of Supreme Court Judges and decide on their removal. It caused nationwide protest and unlike the approval to such constitutional changes in Bangladesh that was silently signed by President, Polish President Andrzej Sebastian Duda has paid heed to the protest of the vast majority and declined to approve the amendment.

He has vetoed the bill in a bid to protect the independence of higher judiciary to make sure that human rights and political liberties of the people enshrined in the constitution in conformity of the European Union’s Charter of Citizens rights and human liberties need to be upheld.

Since the right wing Polish government was paying no heed to the protest of the people and EU’s advice not to pass such law, the EU leadership recently warned Warsaw that it would face sanctions if it moves with the controversial amendment bill to take over control over the judiciary.
The Polish President Andrzej Duda deserves praise as his action came as a surprise when the ruling rightwing Law and Justice (PiS) party was sure of his assent to the bill.

Duda is reported to have made his decision after extensive consultations with political parties and legal experts when thousands of people took to the streets across Poland urging him to veto the proposals aimed at curbing the rule of law and power of judiciary.

Rule of law under attack in the USA
The other threat to democratic institutions and American values is now destabilizing the USA as President Donald Trump, who is already known as a highly volatile person in the White House, is trying to use every government institutions to promote his ultra-right politics of white supremacy to the dismay of almost the entire nation.

He has removed James Comey, the former FBI director as he was running investigation into Russian connection of Trump’s campaign team during 2916 election was mist shocking.

Trump at first asked Comey to drop the probe and later removed him as he remained unshaken. Now he is also threatening to sack Robert Mauler the Congressional Counsel probing the entire Russia collusion in November 2016 in which suspension runs high Trump’s victory was largely facilitated by Russian help.

He does not stop here. The President has now become highly suspicious and also very disappointed to his Attorney General former Senator Jeff Session, who was the first Republican Senator to voice support for him and ran the election campaign. He even met Russian ambassador in Washington on several occasions who has become a key figure in election engineering for Trump to defeat Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton.

Earlier he had also sacked the first Attorney General in his early days in the White House for her refusal to implement Trump’s executive orders on entry restriction of visitors from seven Muslim countries saying it is unconstitutional.

Trump is now blaming his present Attorney for withdrawing involvement in probe into Russia connection in election matter because of his reported involvement in the collusion. But Trump is blaming him for doing nothing to protect him when he wants help from anybody and everybody to protect his presidency.

Earlier he also removed his first national security adviser and close friend Micheal Flynn who played prominent role in election but when the Russia connection of the former Army General surfaced as a paid Russian agent Trump had no option but to ask him to leave.

In fact his authoritarian outlook and neglect to rule of law has otherwise made him to ask others in high offices to break constitutional oath to protect him. IT is a big threat to US establishments.
His Muslim hate and intolerant outlook to immigrant population in the USA who makes up the vast majority of the nation is moreover destabilizing every aspects of the American society.
The daily media disclosure is highly damaging for him. His administration has now become entirely dependent on his son, son-in-law, daughter and such other patty loyalist because he can hardly believe any one as leaks on the messy White House situation is making his inner administration terribly shaking. He is also shaking up key figures of the administration as he is losing trust in them.
Rumours run high that Trump will sack his Attorney General as he is refusing to abuse his office or resign. On the other hand he is also boasting himself as saying he has the power to pardon himself, his sons and other election aides to suggest that he will not stop misusing power to defeat possible indictment on Russia charge if any.

Unfortunately the US tragedy with its democratic institutions and values originate from Donald Trumps unflinching resolve to win election and continue in power telling all that lies and blackmailing voters using populist slogans like America First in his election campaign.

The Polish President saved his country from falling into lawlessness. Bangladesh Supreme Court saved the country and the present government from a big blunder. But attack to democracy sees no end.
http://www.weeklyholiday.net/Homepage/Pages/UserHome.aspx

 

[Banglar Bir]

Shamsul Alam

Bangladesh should learn from Pakistan Supreme Court
রাষ্ট্র হিসাবে পাকিস্তান একটি নতুন সংকটে পড়লো সন্দেহ নাই। তবে আইনের শাসনের পক্ষে দেশটির বিচার বিভাগ একটি বিশ্ব রেকর্ড গড়লো। নওয়াজ শরীফের পুত্র এবং কন্যার (দু’জনেই সাবালক) নাম পানামা পেপার্সে আসাতে তার জন্য পিতাকে দায় বিবেচনা করে প্রধানমন্ত্রী পদের জন্য অযোগ্য ঘোষণা করেছে সুপ্রীম কোর্ট। নওয়াজ সাথে সাথেই পদত্যাগ করে বিচার বিভাগকে সম্মান জানিয়েছেন। এদের তাঁর নিজের মর্যাদাও বেড়েছে। বিশ্বের বহু দেশের আইন ও ন্যায়ের শাসনের জন্য এ ঘটনাটি দৃষ্টান্ত হয়ে থাকবে।

পাকিস্তানের অতীত কর্মকান্ড নিয়ে নানা আপত্তি ও সমালোচনা থাকতে পারে, থাকতে পারে মিলিটারী এবং সন্ত্রাসবাদ নিয়ে অনেক ধরনের কথা। কিন্তু এত কিছুর ভীড়েও বিচার বিভাগ সেখানে মাথা উঁচু করে দাঁড়িয়ে আছে। মাত্র বছর দশেক আগের কথা। ২০০৭ সালে পাকিস্তানে জেনারেল পারভেজ মোশাররফের সামরিক শাসন চলছিল। বড় দু’টি রাজনৈতিক দলের প্রধান নওয়াজ শরীফ এবং বেনজির ভুট্টো বিদেশে বাধ্যতামূলক নির্বাসনে। জুন-জুলাই মাসে মামলার রায় নিয়ে সামরিক সরকারের সাথে বিরোধের জের ধরে পাকিস্তানের প্রধান বিচারপতি ইফতিখার মোহাম্মদ চৌধুরীসহ সুপ্রীম কোর্ট ও হাইকোর্টের ৬০ জন বিচারপতিকে অন্যায়ভাবে চাকরীচ্যুত করেন স্বৈরশাসক জেনারেল পারভেজ মোশাররফ--নিয়োগ দেন তার বশংবদ প্রধান বিচারপতি ও অন্যান্য বিচারকদের। জেনারেল পারভেজের এ অন্যায় কর্মকান্ডের বিরুদ্ধে ফুঁসে উঠে আইনজীবি ও বিচারকরা। আদালত অঙ্গন থেকে আন্দোলন ছড়িয়ে পড়ে সারা দেশে। সাধারন জনতাও সামিল হয় তাতে। এক পর্যায়ে গৃহবন্দী করা হয় প্রধান বিচারপতি ইফতিখারকে। আন্দোলন ক্রমশ বেগবান হয়। সামরিক শাসন বিরোধী আন্দেলনে রাজনৈতিক দলগুলো যোগ দেয়। সহিংসতা ছড়িয়ে পড়ে। বিদেশীরা মুখ ঘুরিয়ে নেয় মোশাররফের উপর থেকে। সেনাবাহিনী সমর্থন প্রত্যাহার করে। অবশেষে জেনারেল পারভেজ মোশররফের ১০ বছরব্যাপী সামরিক শাসনের অবসান ঘটে ২০০৯ সালের ১৮ আগস্ট। রাজনৈতিক সরকার এলে বিচারপতি ইফতিখার ফিরে যান তার স্বপদে। পাকিস্তানে গণতন্ত্র ফিরিয়ে আনতে বিচার বিভাগের সে অবদান স্বর্ণাক্ষরে লেখা থাকবে।

পাকিস্তান সুপ্রীম কোর্টের আজকের এ রায়ও বিশ্ববাসী দেখছে। ক্ষমতাসীন থাকলে পরিবারের সদস্যদের অপকর্মের দায় যে তারই, এই বিচার ভবিষ্যতে অনেকে দেশেই দৃষ্টান্ত হিসাবে নেবে। বাংলাদেশের বর্তমান অবৈধ সরকার প্রধানের পরিবারের সদস্যদের নামে নানা কেলেঙ্কারী, বড় বড় অর্থিক দূর্নীতি, বিদেশে বিশাল বিশাল অংকের ব্যাংক ব্যালেন্স থাকার খবর নানা মাধ্যমে উঠে আসছে। এর মধ্যে, প্রধানমন্ত্রীর পরিবারে এক সদস্যের নামে ২০০ মিলিয়ন ডলারের একটি ব্যাংক হিসাবের কথা বলা আছে মার্কিন জাস্টিস ডিপার্টমেন্টের কাগজে। এটা শত শত দুর্নীতির একাউন্টের মধ্যে একটি মাত্র। স্বাভাবিকভাবেই, এসবের দায়ও অবশ্যই বিনাভোটের প্রধানমন্ত্রীর। পাকিস্তানের রায়ের মত উনার দশাও একই হওয়ার কথা। তবে, বাংলাদেশের জনগনের ভোটের অধিকার হরণ করে কৌশলে ক্ষমতা দখল করাটাই হলো এ যাবৎকালের মধ্যে সবচেয়ে বড় রাষ্ট্রীয় অপরাধ। এটি রাষ্ট্রদ্রোহিতা।

বাংলাদেশের উচ্চ আদালত নিয়ে চলমান দুর্ভাগ্যজনক খবরের পাশাপাশি এ দেশেই রয়েছে উচ্চ আদালতের বিচারকদের অনেক গৌরবোজ্জল ইতিহাস। ১৯৭১ সালের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধের পূর্বকালে অত্যন্ত কঠিন পরিস্থিতির মধ্যেও ইয়হিয়ার নিয়োগ করা গভর্ণর টিক্কা খানকে শপথ দেননি তৎকালীন প্রধান বিচারপতি বি এ সিদ্দিকী, যিনি গাজীপুরের সন্তান। এদেশেরই মানুষ ছিলেন মহীরুহ বিচারপতি মাহবুব মোর্শেদ। কিংবদন্তীতুল্য বিচারপতি সাহাবুদ্দিন আহমেদ এখনও জীবিত। সাবেক প্রধান বিচারপতি জে আর মোদাচ্ছির হোসেন বলেছেন, "যে দেশে বিচার বিভাগ যত উন্নত, সে দেশ তত উন্নত।" সম্ভবত, এ ফরমুলায় প্রতিযোগিতায় সর্বনিচের দিকে স্থান দখল করে আছে বাংলাদেশ। এ অবস্থা চলতে পারে না। বাংলাদেশের সুপ্রীম কোর্টও আশেপাশের দেশের গুরুত্বপূর্ন রায় দেখে সাহসী হয়ে উঠবেন, এগিয়ে আসবেন দেশ রক্ষায়- এটাই জনগনের প্রত্যাশা।


আমাদের দেশে সরকার থাকলে তো ভালো কিছু আশা করি, বাংলাদেশে এখন ডাকাত দল দেশ দখল করে রেখেছে। আসলে আমাদের ইতিহাস থেকে শিক্ষা নিতে হবে, আমি আপনি সকলেই।
Sakin Al Sad Full of information & hopefulness, sir. Known many facts from this write up.

Pakistan's Supreme Court creates a Legend: Where are Bangladeshi Moral Preachers and Dalal's?
পাকিস্তানের সুপ্রিমকোর্টের নজির স্থাপন ঃ বাংলাদেশের দালাল আর চেতনাপন্থিরা কোথায় ?

28 Jul, 2017

রাহাত আব্দুল্লাহ

পানামা লিকসে পাকিস্তানের প্রধানমন্ত্রী নওয়াজ শরীফের নাম আসার পর সর্বপ্রথম পাকিস্তান জামায়াতে ইসলামীর আমির সিরাজুল হক নওয়াজ শরীফকে সরাতে রিট আবেদন করেন..তারপর ইমরান খানের পিটিআই সহ অন্যান্য দলগুলো এই আন্দোলনে শামিল হয়...আজ তার পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে নওয়াজ শরীফকে অযোগ্য ঘোষণা করলো পাকিস্তান হাইকোর্ট...

এই রায়ের পর আমাদের দেশের বিচারপতি ত্রাণ খাইরুলের কথা মনে পড়ে গেলো..যিনি আওয়ামী এজেন্ডা বাস্তবায়ন করতে তত্বাবধায়ক সরকার সিস্টেমকে অবৈধ ঘোষণা করেন..যার পরিণতিতে আজ আওয়ামী ডিজিটালের হাবিয়া দোজগে বাস করছে বাংলাদেশের মানুষ...

তারপর মনে পড়ে গেলো নিজের সব দুর্নীতি মামলা প্রত্যাহার করলেও, আওয়ামী পেটিকোর্টের বিচারপতি দিয়ে বেগম খালেদা জিয়াকে হয়রানি..যে অভিযোগের সাথে বেগম খালেদা জিয়ার কোনো সংশ্লিষ্টতা নেই..বিচারপতিরা জেনেও শুধু মাত্র আওয়ামীলীগের কুৎসিত জিঘাংসা বাস্তবায়ন করে যাচ্ছেন..

আবার আমার মনে পড়ে গেলো, বর্তমান প্রধান বিচারপতি এসকে সিনহা, নিজামুল হক নাসিম ও জিয়াদ আল মালুমের স্কাইপে কেলেঙ্কারীর কথোপকথন..যারা প্রোমোশনের জন্য এবং আওয়ামীলীগের রাজনৈতিক প্রতিহিংসা বাস্তবায়ন করতে কিছু মানুষকে বিচারের নামে হত্যা করেছে..

আবার মনে পড়ে গেলো সেইসব বোনদের কথা..যাদেরকে কুরআনের অনুষ্ঠানে উপস্থিত থাকার কারণে গ্রেপ্তার করার পর বিচারক নামক হায়েনাগুলো গর্ভবতী ও ৩ মাসের বাচ্চাসহ মায়েদেরকে রিমান্ডে দিয়েছিলো...

পানামা লিকসে আওয়ামীলীগের নেতা ও বেনজির আহমেদসহ (ধারণা করা হয় RAB প্রধান) বাংলাদেশের ২৩ জনের নাম এসেছিলো..তাদের বিরুদ্ধে কি ব্যবস্থা নিয়েছে বাংলাদেশ সরকার ?

আমাদের দেশের চেতনাবাজরা কথায় কথায় পাকিস্তানকে গালি দেয়..আজকে পাকিস্তান আদালত যে দৃষ্টান্ত উপস্থাপন করলো, তা কি পারবে চেতনা নাৎসিদের বাংলাদেশ ??

এই রায়ের পর আমাদের দেশের বিচারপতি ত্রাণ খাইরুলের কথা মনে পড়ে গেলো..যিনি আওয়ামী এজেন্ডা বাস্তবায়ন করতে তত্বাবধায়ক সরকার সিস্টেমকে অবৈধ ঘোষণা করেন..যার পরিণতিতে আজ আওয়ামী ডিজিটালের হাবিয়া দোজগে বাস করছে বাংলাদেশের মানুষ...

তারপর মনে পড়ে গেলো নিজের সব দুর্নীতি মামলা প্রত্যাহার করলেও, আওয়ামী পেটিকোর্টের বিচারপতি দিয়ে বেগম খালেদা জিয়াকে হয়রানি..যে অভিযোগের সাথে বেগম খালেদা জিয়ার কোনো সংশ্লিষ্টতা নেই..বিচারপতিরা জেনেও শুধু মাত্র আওয়ামীলীগের কুৎসিত জিঘাংসা বাস্তবায়ন করে যাচ্ছেন..

আবার আমার মনে পড়ে গেলো, বর্তমান প্রধান বিচারপতি এসকে সিনহা, নিজামুল হক নাসিম ও জিয়াদ আল মালুমের স্কাইপে কেলেঙ্কারীর কথোপকথন..যারা প্রোমোশনের জন্য এবং আওয়ামীলীগের রাজনৈতিক প্রতিহিংসা বাস্তবায়ন করতে কিছু মানুষকে বিচারের নামে হত্যা করেছে..

আবার মনে পড়ে গেলো সেইসব বোনদের কথা..যাদেরকে কুরআনের অনুষ্ঠানে উপস্থিত থাকার কারণে গ্রেপ্তার করার পর বিচারক নামক হায়েনাগুলো গর্ভবতী ও ৩ মাসের বাচ্চাসহ মায়েদেরকে রিমান্ডে দিয়েছিলো...

পানামা লিকসে আওয়ামীলীগের নেতা ও বেনজির আহমেদসহ (ধারণা করা হয় RAB প্রধান) বাংলাদেশের ২৩ জনের নাম এসেছিলো..তাদের বিরুদ্ধে কি ব্যবস্থা নিয়েছে বাংলাদেশ সরকার ?

আমাদের দেশের চেতনাবাজরা কথায় কথায় পাকিস্তানকে গালি দেয়..আজকে পাকিস্তান আদালত যে দৃষ্টান্ত উপস্থাপন করলো, তা কি পারবে চেতনা নাৎসিদের বাংলাদেশ ??

http://www.newsonbd.net/newsdetail/detail/49/325841

 

[Banglar Bir]

Chief Justice: Just wait if you think my statements are political
Tribune Desk
Published at 10:41 PM July 29, 2017

Chief Justice Surendra Kumar SinhaDhaka Tribune
"Honourable Minister, how will the judiciary continue?"
Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha said he will keep making statements about issues related to the courts for the sake of the judiciary, even if critics say that he is making political statements.

“If anyone thinks that my statements are political then I will do it even more for the sake of the judiciary,” he said in a function at the Supreme Court Auditorium in Dhaka on Saturday.

The programme was arranged to award country’s first female Judge Nazmun Ara Sultana, as she went into retirement on Saturday, reports UNB.

Law Minister Anisul Huq was also present at the programme.

Pointing at the minister, the Chief Justice said: “Honourable [Law] minister, I am telling you the main building of the Supreme Court is in very bad shape. Rainwater drops on the chair I sit on while the main record room of the High Court and the Appellate Division is also situated in this building.”

“The proposal for building a new annex building is still pending. The present building will not last for more than five to six years. One day we will have to deliver verdicts in an open space if the [proposed] 20-storey annex building is not constructed soon. Honourable minister, how will the judiciary continue?” he questioned.

Addressing the programme regarding the retiring judge, Anisul Huq said: “Justice Nazmun Ara Sultana is part of the history of Bangladesh and its judiciary. Many women followed in her footsteps and joined this profession. 24% of judges in the country are female.”

http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/court/2017/07/29/chief-justice-statements-political/

 

[Nilgiri]

Pointing at the minister, the Chief Justice said: “Honourable [Law] minister, I am telling you the main building of the Supreme Court is in very bad shape. Rainwater drops on the chair I sit on while the main record room of the High Court and the Appellate Division is also situated in this building.”

“The proposal for building a new annex building is still pending. The present building will not last for more than five to six years. One day we will have to deliver verdicts in an open space if the [proposed] 20-storey annex building is not constructed soon. Honourable minister, how will the judiciary continue?” he questioned.

Quite literally, justice is in bad shape in BD.....and getting lot worse. But BBS feel good fake numbers will make it all better!

BD is going to be fun to watch for quite a while now with the full commitment to preserving the political "imbalance" . Begun the ingrate wars have.

 

[Banglar Bir]

Judges are appointed to serve Political Agenda
‘রাজনৈতিক কারণে বিচারক নিয়োগ দেয়া হয়’

staff reporter

দেশ উন্নয়নের মহাসড়কে দাবি করা হলেও বিচার বিভাগের অবকাঠামো উন্নয়নে সে ছোঁয়া লাগেনি বলে মন্তব্য করেছেন প্রধান বিচারপতি সুরেন্দ্র কুমার (এস কে) সিনহা। তিনি জানান, তিনি যে চেয়ারে বসেন সামান্য বৃষ্টি হলেই সে চেয়ারে বৃষ্টির পানি পড়ে। গতকাল শনিবার দেশের প্রথম নারী বিচারপতি (অবসরপ্রাপ্ত) নাজমুন আরা সুলতানার সংবর্ধনা অনুষ্ঠানে তিনি এ কথা জানান। প্রধান বিচারপতি এস কে সিনহা বলেন, সুপ্রিম কোর্টের মূল ভবনে আমি যে চেয়ারে বসি, সেখানেও বৃষ্টির পানি পড়ে। আপিল বিভাগ ও হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের মূল রেকর্ড রুমও এ ভবনে। সামনে মনে হয় মাঠে বসে বিচার কাজ পরিচালনা করতে হবে। বিচারপতি নাজমুন আরা সুলতানাকে আজীবন সম্মাননা প্রদান অনুষ্ঠানের আয়োজন করে বাংলাদেশ মহিলা জজ অ্যাসোসিয়েশন। সুপ্রিম কোর্ট অডিটোরিয়ামে মহিলা জজদের অ্যাসোসিয়েশনের সভাপতি তানজীনা ইসমাইলের সভাপতিত্বে এ সম্মাননা অনুষ্ঠানে আইনমন্ত্রী আনিসুল হকও উপস্থিত ছিলেন।

সুপ্রিম কোর্টের মূল ভবনের বর্তমান বেহাল অবস্থার চালচিত্র তুলে ধরে প্রধান বিচারপতি বলেন, ২০ তলা নতুন ভবনের প্রস্তাব একনেকেই ঘোরাঘুরি করছে। বর্তমান মূল ভবন মনে হয় আর পাঁচ-ছয় বছরের বেশি টিকবে না। এটি ধসে গেলে মনে হয় আমাদের মাঠে বসেই বিচার কাজ পরিচালনা করতে হবে। তিনি বলেন, হাইকোর্টে বিচারকের সংখ্যা নির্দিষ্ট করে দেয়া না থাকায় প্রতিটি রাজনৈতিক সরকার ইচ্ছেমতো হাইকোর্টে বিচারক নিয়োগ দিয়ে থাকে। সময় আসছে হাইকোর্টে বিচারক সংখ্যা নির্দিষ্ট করে দেয়ার। বিচারকের সংখ্যা নির্দিষ্ট করে দেয়া থাকলে রাজনৈতিক প্রভাব কমে যায়। এই রাজনৈতিক প্রভাব যতই কমবে, ততই বিচার বিভাগের জন্য মঙ্গল। আমাদের দেশে মামলার পরিসংখ্যান অনুযায়ী বিচারক নিয়োগ দেয়া হয় না। বিশ্বের প্রত্যেকটি দেশে মামলার সংখ্যানুপাতে বিচারক নিয়োগ দেয়ার বিধান আছে। ভারতের তুলনায় আমাদের এখানে অর্ধেক বিচারক। ইউএসএতে সুপ্রিম কোর্টে ৯ জন বিচারক।

ইচ্ছে করে সরকার সেখানে এর বেশি বিচারক নিয়োগ দিতে পারে না। একটা কনভেনশন (রীতি) চলে আসছে। ভারতের সুপ্রিম কোর্টে বিচারকের সংখ্যাও নির্ধারণ করে দেয়া আছে। আর আমাদের সুপ্রিম কোর্টের আপিল বিভাগে ১১ জন বিচারকের সংখ্যা নির্ধারণ করে দেয়া হয়েছে। এখন বিচারক কমে ছয়জনে দাঁড়িয়েছে। এরপর আগামী বছর এই সংখ্যা চারজনে গিয়ে দাঁড়াবে। তখন কোনো রিভিউ পিটিশন আসলে বিচারকের অভাবে সেটি শুনানি করা সম্ভব হবে না। এসব বিবেচনা করে সরকারকে বলব, বিচার বিভাগ অকেজো হওয়ার আগে এটিকে টিকিয়ে রাখতে বিচারক নিয়োগ দিয়ে সাহায্যের হাত বাড়িয়ে দিন।

আইনমন্ত্রীর উদ্দেশে প্রধান বিচারপতি বলেন, সরকার যদি মনে করে; প্রধান বিচারপতি রাজনৈতিক বক্তব্য দিচ্ছে, তাহলে আমি বলব ‘হ্যাঁ’। প্রধান বিচারপতি বিচার বিভাগের স্বার্থেই রাজনৈতিক বক্তব্য দেবেন। বিচারকদের অবস্থা ও বিচার বিভাগের উন্নয়নের জন্য প্রধান বিচারপতি আরো বলবেন। এ ব্যাপারে আমি দ্বিধান্বিত হব না। জাতীয় বাজেটে বিচার বিভাগের বরাদ্দ কমিয়ে দেয়ার সমালোচনা করে তিনি বলেন, গত তিন বছরে সুপ্রিম কোর্টের উন্নয়ন বরাদ্দের জন্য একটি টাকাও দেয়া হয়নি। অর্থমন্ত্রীকে চিঠি দিয়েছিলাম, কিন্তু অজ্ঞাত কারণে কোনো টাকা বরাদ্দ হয়নি। অথচ জাতীয় সংসদের জন্য উন্নয়ন খাতে বরাদ্দ হয়েছে ১৬ কোটি ৪২ লাখ টাকা। এ ছাড়া সন্ত্রাসের কারণে দেশের সব জায়গায় নিরাপত্তা দেয়ার জন্য বাজেট বরাদ্দ বাড়ানো হয়েছে। গত বছরের বাজেট থেকে এবারের বাজেটে বিচার বিভাগের জন্য বরাদ্দ কমিয়ে দেয়া হয়েছে। এভাবে বাজেটের বরাদ্দ প্রত্যাহার করে একেবারে ‘শূন্য’ করে দেয়া হচ্ছে। এই যদি হয় অবস্থা, তাহলে বিচার বিভাগ চলবে কীভাবে? আইনমন্ত্রীর উদ্দেশে তিনি আরো বলেন, মাননীয় মন্ত্রী আপনাকে বলছি, সুপ্রিম কোর্টের মূল ভবন ভঙ্গুর অবস্থায় রয়েছে। আমি যে চেয়ারে বসি, সামান্য বৃষ্টি হলে সেখানেও বৃষ্টির পানি পড়ে। নতুন একটা অ্যানেক্স ভবন না করলে মাঠে বসে বিচার কাজ করতে হবে। মাননীয় মন্ত্রী বিচার বিভাগ কীভাবে চলবে?

বিচারপতি নাজমুন আরা সুলতানাকে নারী বিচারকদের পথপ্রদর্শক উল্লেখ করে তিনি বলেন, পৃথিবীর যে কোনো দেশের চেয়ে আমাদের দেশে নারী বিচারকরা অগ্রগামী। সরকার এগিয়ে আসলে হাইকোর্টে আরো নারী বিচারক নিয়োগ দেয়া সম্ভব। আমাদের দেশে রেওয়াজ হয়ে গেছে, পলিটিক্যাল সরকার ক্ষমতায় এসে হাইকোর্ট বিভাগে ইচ্ছামতো বিচারপতি নিয়োগ দেন। হাইকোর্টের বিচারপতিদের একটা নির্দিষ্ট সংখ্যা থাকতে হবে। এ সময় সরকারের প্রতি আপিল বিভাগে আরো তিনজন বিচারপতি নিয়োগ দেয়ার আবেদন জানিয়ে বিচার বিভাগ অকেজো হয়ে যাওয়ার আগে সর্বোচ্চ আদালতের বিভিন্ন শূন্যপদে বিচারক নিয়োগ এবং সার্বিক অবকাঠামো উন্নয়নে মনোযোগী হতে সরকারের প্রতি তিনি আহŸান জানান।

আইনমন্ত্রী আনিসুল হক বলেন, বিচারপতি নাজমুন আরা সুলতানা এ দেশ এবং বিচার বিভাগের ইতিহাসের অংশ। তিনি এ দেশের বিচার বিভাগের অহঙ্কার। তাকে অনুসরণ করে অনেক নারী এ পেশায় এসেছেন। আজ তাই দেশে ২৪ শতাংশ নারী বিচারক রয়েছেন। অনুষ্ঠানে বিচারপতি নাজমুন আরা সুলতানা বলেন, আমি আমার বিচারিক জীবনে ন্যায়বিচার করে গেছি। কখনো ইচ্ছাকৃতভাবে কিংবা অবহেলায় ভুল বিচার করিনি। নারী বিচারকদের উদ্দেশ্যে তিনি বলেন, প্রিয় নারী বিচারকরা মনে রাখবেন, বিচারকের জীবন মানেই ন্যায়বিচারের দায়িত্ব কাঁধে নেয়া। আর এ দায়িত্ব পালন করা খুব কঠিন ও পরিশ্রমের।
http://rtnews24.net/national/71317

 

[Banglar Bir]

SC refuses to fully accept govt rules for lower court judges
Expresses dissatisfaction at law ministry

Star Online Report
The Supreme Court today refused to fully accept the rules determining the discipline and code of conduct of lower court judges submitted by the law ministry.

Read More: Lower Court Judges: Govt submits draft rules to chief justice
Expressing dissatisfaction at the law ministry, the court said the ministry has taken a u-turn in making the rules in the light of its directives mentioned in the verdict of Masdar Hossain case (known as Judiciary separation case).

Also read: News Analysis: Separation that never ends
The apex court decided to hold a meeting with the judges, law minister, attorney general and the government officials who are the experts on the rules. The meeting can be held anytime between 2:00pm and 12midnight this week, the court said.

A six-member bench of the Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha also fixed August 6 for passing further order on this issue.

In the rules made by the law ministry, its officials have been kept safe even if any allegation is raised against them, the chief justice said.

The High Court is the authority to control the lower court judges and this provision has been remaining from 1861. But in the rule submitted by the government, the district judges have been made the authority to control the assistant judges, the CJ said.

According to the proposed rules submitted by Law Minister Annisul Huq on Thursday, the chief justice has no authority to take any action against the law ministry officials, he added.

The chief justice said he did not examine the rules when the law minister submitted the rules during a meeting with him.

Earlier, the law minister had fully agreed with the chief justice over formulating the rule but the rule which was submitted is reversed, he said.

Terming the attorney general a “bridge” between the Supreme Court and the government, the chief justice said the attorney general will communicate with the government for holding the meeting so that a complete rule can be formulated.
http://www.thedailystar.net/city/ba...m_medium=newsurl&utm_term=all&utm_content=all

 

[Banglar Bir]

12:00 AM, July 31, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 02:55 AM, July 31, 2017
Lower Court Judges: SC deplores draft rules
Says it won't accept rules in full as 'control still in govt hands'
Staff Correspondent

The Supreme Court yesterday refused to accept in full the draft rules determining the discipline of lower court judges, and said the rules were a U-turn on the top court's directives.

“And it cannot go on like this,” the SC said in a stern admonishment to the law ministry, which submitted the draft last week for the SC's approval.

The court expressed its dissatisfaction with the ministry as it made the rules by making a “U-turn” on the directives given in the verdict in Masdar Hossain case, known as separation of judiciary case.

The draft states that any judicial officer facing allegations of misconduct will be attached to the law ministry. This way, the draft rules protect the ministry officials, Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, who was heading a six-member bench of the apex court, said during the hearing on the Masdar Hossain case.

He demanded to know from the attorney general the necessity of the High Court if all the authority is given to the law ministry.

Under the rules, even the chief justice has no power to take action against judicial officers.

All the lower court judges and most law ministry officials are judicial officers.

The High Court has been the authority to exercise control over the lower court judges in line with a tradition since 1861, but the rules prepared by the law ministry make district judges the “sole authority” to control assistant judges, the CJ said.

“In that case, you can as well dissolve the High Court,” he told Attorney General Mahbubey Alam, who stood for submitting a petition to the SC seeking time for issuing a gazette notification on the rules.

The apex court decided to hold a meeting this week with judges, the law minister, the attorney general, experts and the government officials concerned to finalise the rules.

The court also fixed August 6 for passing further order on this issue.

During the proceedings, the chief justice sought to know from the attorney general the meaning of “competent authority,” as the draft does not explain the term.

The AG did not respond.

The CJ then said that from the reading, it seemed that by “competent authority” the draft referred to the president. And by making the president the “competent authority”, the draft in essence makes the law ministry the “competent authority.”

The chief of any institution is the “competent authority” and in case of the judiciary, it is the Supreme Court, he asserted.

The SC verdict in Masdar Hossain case said the gazette on the rules would be effective from the date fixed by the apex court. But now the draft says the rules will come into force since the day of the gazette notification, Justice Sinha said.

Sixteen years into the SC verdict in the separation of judiciary case, the government has yet to formulate the rules, and if things go on like this the gazette notification will not come in 1,600 years, he said.

Earlier, the law minister had fully agreed with the SC about formulating the rules, but the rules the ministry submitted is a complete departure from his previous position, the CJ added.

Terming the attorney general a “bridge” between the Supreme Court and the government, the chief justice said the attorney general would have to communicate with the government for holding a meeting to formulate a complete set of rules.

Law Minister Anisul Huq met the CJ at his office on Thursday and submitted the draft.

The minister then told reporters that the rules would be sent to the president for approval if the CJ gave consent to those after scrutiny.

Contacted yesterday, Mahbubey Alam said he would inform the law ministry about the SC's decision to hold a meeting with judges, the law minister and the government officials concerned.

The meeting might take place on Wednesday, he added.

Meanwhile, the law minister told reporters in Jessore yesterday that the rules would be finalised upholding article 116 of the constitution.

“I am in discussion about this issue. When I submitted the draft rules, I had said that more discussions will take place, if necessary. There is nothing to say on this issue in such a way in the courtroom,” he said.

At a function there earlier in the day, the minister said there was no conflict between the executive branch and the judiciary.
http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/lower-court-judges-sc-disappointed-over-draft-rules-1441294

 

[Banglar Bir]

SC wants to take away president’s power over lower court judges: Law minister
SAM Staff, August 1, 2017

Chief Justice Sinha (L) and Law Minister Huq
The Supreme Court wants to “take away” the president’s power over lower court judges described in the Constitution, Law Minister Anisul Huq has said.

He made the remark after Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha said the government, while drafting the judges’ service rules, went against the Appellate Division’s advice.

The law minister recently submitted to the chief justice the final draft of the gazette, which has caused much tension between the executive and the judiciary.

But Justice Sinha rejected the draft on Sunday, objecting to some of its terms and regulations.

“Article 109 of the Constitution gives the High Court, not the Appellate Division, the authority to supervise all lower courts and tribunals,” Huq told a discussion on Monday.

The draft of the judges’ service rules was based on that, he said.

“The correction they (Supreme Court) had asked for … I have the document … was to take away the president’s power as described in Article 116. How can I do that?

“You give me a verdict … I can’t do that,” he told the gathering of the Bangabandhu Awami Lawyers’ Council.

Chief Justice Sinha sought the removal of Article 116 and the restoration of a relevant article from the 1972 Constitution, which he said would eliminate the ‘dual authority’ that exists because the Supreme Court did not have the power to transfer or promote lower court judges.

The article says —

1. The control (including the power of posting, promotion and grant of leave) and discipline of persons employed in the judicial service and magistrates exercising judicial functions shall vest in the President and shall be exercised by him in consultation with the Supreme Court.]

The law ministry is empowered to work under the article on behalf of the president. The chief justice blamed the article for sluggishness experienced in the judiciary.

Article 116 in the 1972 Constitution read –

The control (including the power of posting, promotion and grant of leave) and discipline of persons employed in the judicial service and magistrates exercising judicial functions shall vest in the Supreme Court.]

The ruling Awami League returned the four pillars of the 1972 Constitution through the 15th Amendment but retained the president’s authority over subordinate courts.
SOURCE BDNEWS24.COM
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/0...idents-power-lower-court-judges-law-minister/

10:40 AM, August 01, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 10:54 AM, August 01, 2017
Bangladesh Supreme Court releases full verdict on scrapping 16th amendment
Star Online Report

The Supreme Court today released the full verdict that scrapped the 16th amendment of the constitution, which had empowered the parliament to remove its judges for incapacity or misbehavior.

READ more: Power not with JS
The apex court released the 799-page text of the verdict after its six judges including Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha signed it, High Court's Additional Registrar Md Sabbir Faiz told The Daily Star.

Justice Nazmun Ara Sultana, who was a member of the SC bench during hearing on the case, however did not sign the judgement as she retired on July 7, the additional registrar said.

More to follow...
http://www.thedailystar.net/city/sc-judges-removal-sc-releases-full-verdict-1441969

Full text of 16th Amendment verdict released

• Tribune Desk
• Published at 10:58 AM August 01, 2017
• Last updated at 11:04 AM August 01, 2017
  

The copy of the verdict will soon be released on the website of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has released the full text of its verdict that declared the 16th Amendment to the constitution illegal.

The verdict was released Tuesday morning, reports the UNB.

The copy of the full verdict was released after singing of all seven members of the Appellate Division bench, headed by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, said the SC additional registrar Sabbir Foyez.

According to the report, the copy of the verdict will soon be released on the website of the Supreme Court.

Earlier on July 3, upheld a High Court judgement that had scrapped the amendment, rejecting an appeal filed by the state.

Following the verdict, the parliament lost its power to impeach judges of the apex court.

The 16th Amendment was passed by parliament on September 17, 2014, empowering the members of parliament (MPs) to impeach the top court judges for incapability or misconduct via two-thirds majority.

The amendment triggered debate on whether parliament should have such authority, and nine Supreme Court lawyers filed a writ petition with the High Court on November 5 the same year challenging the legality of the constitutional change.
Also Read- 16th Amendment scrapped, parliament loses power to impeach SC judges

The High Court declared the amendment illegal on May 5, 2016. The government moved the Appellate Division against the High Court verdict on January 4, 2017.

On February 8, the Supreme Court appointed 12 senior lawyers as amici curiae, seeking their opinions over the legality of the 16th Amendment.

Hearing on the appeal began on May 8 and continued till June 1. During the hearing, nine of the amici curiae opined against the 16th Amendment, one in favour, while two refrained from giving an opinion.

During the hearing, the government counsel argued that the Martial Law authorities had inserted the Supreme Judicial Council concept when they were in power illegally, and the 16th Amendment was introduced to go back to the original constitution.

He said the amendment did not harm the original structure of the constitution.

In response, the writ petitioners’ counsel said the provision in the 1972 constitution, which empowered lawmakers to impeach judges, was scrapped through the Fourth Amendment in 1975 as the provision
proved to cause more harm than good.

They further argued that ruling party lawmakers cannot vote against their party’s decisions due to Article 70 of the constitution, even if they disagree with the said decisions. Same could happen in case of the impeachment of a Supreme Court judge, they added.

The Fourth Amendment, passed in 1975, vested the power of impeaching Supreme Court judges in the president. The Fifth Amendment, brought on during the regime of military strongman Ziaur Rahman, made way for the formation of Supreme Judicial Council to impeach judges.

This amendment was declared illegal by the court later.

http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/court/2017/08/01/full-text-16th-amendment-released/

President’s power to control lower court judges declared illegal
Staff Correspondent | Published: 10:10, Aug 01,2017 | Updated: 11:19, Aug 01,2017
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court declared illegal article 116 of the constitution relating to president’s power to control discipline of the lower court judges.

The Appellate Division gave the decision of scrapping the president’s power by majority decision of the seven judges chaired by Chief Justice SK Sinha.

President’s constitutional power was declared illegal in the 799-pages full verdict.

The Appellate Division on Tuesday released its full verdict that had earlier declared 16th amendment to constitution relating to removal of the Supreme Court judges for misconduct.

The full verdict was posted on the Supreme Court website.

‘ The article 116 was amended by the constitution’s fourth amendment and by this amendment the word ‘president’ was substituted for the word supreme court. ‘

This amendment, therefore, violates the basic structures of the constitution and therefore, this substitution of the word ‘president’ is ultra vires the constitution.


http://www.newagebd.net/article/209...o-control-lower-court-judges-declared-illegal

 

[Banglar Bir]

শীর্ষনিউজ, ঢাকা: প্রধান বিচারপতি সুরেন্দ্র কুমার সিনহা অ্যাটর্নি জেনারেল মাহবুবে আলমকে উদ্দেশ্য করে বলেছেন, ‘আপনারা জাজদের মধ্যে ডিভিশন সৃষ্টি করতে চাচ্ছেন। আপনারা কোর্টের স্বাধীনতা খর্ব করবেন, আমরা কি কিছুই বলতে পারবো না?’
মঙ্গলবার নির্বাহী ম্যাজিস্ট্রেটদের দিয়ে মোবাইল কোর্ট পরিচালনা সংক্রান্ত আপিল শুনানিতে প্রধান বিচারপতি এ মন্তব্য করেন।

আদালত বলেন, আপনারা জাজদের (বিচারকদের) মধ্যে ডিভিশন সৃষ্টি করতে চাচ্ছেন। আমরা কি কোর্টে বসে মন্তব্য করতে পারবো না? ‘কিছু কিছু মন্ত্রী এজলাসে বসে কথা বলার বিষয়ে মন্তব্য করেন। এটা কি ফেয়ার? আপনাকে প্রশ্ন করছি।’

তখন অ্যাটর্নি জেনারেল মাহবুবে আলম বলেন, দুই দিক থেকে বক্তব্য আসে। বক্তব্য মিডিয়া লুফে নেয়।
জবাবে প্রধান বিচারপতি বলেন, আপনি কেন এ কথা বলছেন? বিচারে আমরা পলিটিক্যাল মন্তব্য দেই না। বিচার বিভাগ সংক্রান্ত বক্তব্য দেই। বিচার বিভাগে যখন যে ইস্যু চলে আসে। যেমন আজকে (মঙ্গলবার) মোবাইল কোর্ট সম্পর্কে না বললে কী থাকলো। আমরা পলিটিক্যাল কথা বলছি না।

এ সময় বিচারপতি মো. আবদুল ওয়াহাব মিঞা বলেন, ‘শৃঙ্খলা বিধির খসড়ায় গেজেট প্রকাশের বিষয়টি আমরা সুপ্রিম কোর্টের কথা অনুসারে বলেছিলাম। কিন্তু আপনারা সেখানে সরকারের কথা বলেছেন।’
এরপর প্রধান বিচারপতি বলেন, ‘পলিটিক্যাল কথা বলছি না। মি. অ্যাটর্নি জেনারেল, আপনারা জাজদের মধ্যে ডিভিশন সৃষ্টি করতে চাচ্ছেন। পত্রিকায় এসেছে একজন, একজন বলেছেন। কোর্ট প্রসিডিং-এ আদালতের কার্যক্রমে যা হয়, তা নিয়ে পার্লামেন্ট এবং পাবলিকলি কথা বলার সুযোগ নেই।’

প্রধান বিচারপতি আরও বলেন, মাসদার হোসেন মামলার ১১৬ অনুচ্ছেদ এবং ১১৬ অনুচ্ছেদের ‘ক’ এর ব্যাখ্যা দিয়ে ওই মামলার রায় হয়েছে। এখন যদি আপনাদের কাছ থেকে ব্যাখ্যা শুনতে হয় তাহলে দুঃখজনক।
শীর্ষনিউজ//এআর/জে
http://www.sheershanews24.com/offic...যে-ডিভিশন-সৃষ্টি-করতে-চাচ্ছেন-প্রধান-বিচারপতি

 

[Banglar Bir]

2:00 AM, August 02, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 03:45 AM, August 02, 2017
SC critical
Full verdict on 16th amendment released

Shakhawat Liton and Ashutosh Sarkar

The government becomes arrogant and uncontrolled in the absence of checks and balances and effective watchdog mechanism, observes the Supreme Court in the verdict scrapping the 16th amendment to the constitution.

"Human rights are at stake, corruption is rampant, parliament is dysfunctional, crores of people are deprived of basic healthcare and mismanagement in the administration is acute," reads the verdict of the Appellate Division of the SC.

The full text of the verdict was released yesterday. The court scrapped the amendment that had given the parliament the power to remove SC judges on the grounds of misconduct or incapacity.

With the development of technology, the dimensions of crimes are changing, the apex court says, adding that the lives and security of citizens are becoming utterly insecure.

"The law enforcing agencies are unable to tackle the situation and the combined result of all this is a crippled society, a society where a good man does not dream of good things at all; but the bad man is all the more restless to grab a few more of bounty," reads the verdict.

"In such a situation, the executive becomes arrogant and uncontrolled and the bureaucracy will never opt for efficiency," the apex court says in the verdict.

It further states, "Even after forty-six years of independence, we have not been able to institutionalise any public institutions. There are no checks and balances, there is no watchdog mechanism at work, thus the people in the position are being indulged into abuse of power and showing audacity of freehand exercise of power."

In the verdict, the apex court also focuses on the state of the judiciary. It says that even in this endless challenge, the judiciary is the only relatively independent organ of the state which, even though sinking, is striving to keep its nose above the water.

"But judiciary too cannot survive long in this situation. Yet, no law has been formulated for selection and appointment of judges in the higher judiciary. There is no scope for imparting training to the judges of the higher judiciary. It is the high time for formulating laws for the selection of the judges and their training so that they can be equipped to face the challenges of 21st century," reads the verdict.

It states, "Instead of strengthening the judiciary, the executive is now trying to cripple it and if it happens, there could be disastrous consequences."

The government in September 2014 brought the 16th amendment. The amendment was challenged with the High Court. The HC in May 2016 declared the amendment unconstitutional and void. The government challenged the verdict by filing an appeal with the Appellate Division which rejected the government's appeal on July 3 and upheld the HC verdict.

On both occasions, MPs in Jatiya Sangsad launched a scathing attack on the apex court for scrapping the amendment.

In the full verdict, the apex court also focuses on the country's political culture. It says the state power, which is another dimension of political power, is nowadays becoming a monopoly of a few and this suicidal tendency of concentration of power is increasing.

"The greed for power is alike plague, once set in motion it will try to devour everything. Needless to say, this WAS NOT at all the aims and vision of our liberation struggle. Our Forefathers fought to establish a democratic state, not to produce any power-monster," the court observes.

The apex court criticises the last two martial law regimes as well.

It says that after independence, those unholy alliances of power-mongers reduced this country to a banana republic twice. People were bluffed and compromised to legitimise their illegal exercise of power.

"They did not empower the people, rather they abused their position and introduced different bluffing tools (sometimes gono [public] vote, sometimes rigged election and sometimes no election at all!) as means to prolong their power game," reads the apex court verdict.

"Thus as an institution, the notion of 'politics' has been completely destroyed."

It says dirty political practices of those undemocratic regimes to a great extent even infected the civil politics.

"Politics is no longer free, it is now highly commercial and money is in the driving seat which controls the course of action and its destination.

"Now power, not merit, tends to control all public institutions of the country. Irony of the history is that with the unflinching determination and indomitable spirit, we were able to free a country from the clutches of a military superpower but we have been measurably defeated by ourselves in that very free country," reads the verdict.

The SC says even in matured democracy, bureaucracy and judiciary, like in India, there is strong criticism of parliamentarians, parliament, and bureaucracy and to some allowable extent of the judges of the high and lower courts.

The verdict says, "In comparison to the standard of democracy, bureaucracy, freedom of press and rule of law they have been able to establish, we cannot even think to be a match with them in any manner."

Referring to a statement Indian first president and seasoned politician Rajendra Prasad made in Indian Constituent Assembly about the quality of a person who would represent the people to build a welfare state by promulgating laws, the apex court said he must have integrity and be a man of character.

"Even laws may be defective but if a parliamentarian possesses all the qualities that are required to have with him, the foundation of democracy may be shaped phase by phase. This was the fervent hope of the millions who fought for the establishment of a country where there will be democracy and rule of law. This faith has to be restored, failing which the independence will be meaningless."
http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/sc-critical-1442230

BD top court revives Supreme Judicial Council to sack its judges
SAM Staff, August 2, 2017

The Supreme Court has reinstated Supreme Judicial Council, which was introduced by a military government, in the Constitution.

The Appellate Division published the full verdict on the 16th Amendment, repealing the amendment and restoring six clauses of Article 96, on Tuesday – around a month after issuing the summary verdict.

The Appellate Division also reformulated a 39-point code of conduct amending the one issued last year for the judges in exercise of powers under the article.

The 799-page verdict said the State’s appeal against the High Court verdict repealing the 16th Amendment is dismissed with a unanimous decision.

Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha observed, “The decisions of the apex court of the country are final not because they are infallible, but because the decisions are infallible as they are constitutionally final.

“By the impugned amendment, the removal mechanism of the Judges of higher judiciary by the Supreme Judicial Council has been substituted by the Parliamentary removal mechanism. Since this amendment in ultra vires the constitution, the provision prevailing before substitution is restored. The appeal is accordingly dismissed,” he added.

Parliament brought back the powers to impeach Supreme Court judges on Sep 17, 2014 by changing Article 96, which is known as the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

The High Court in 2016 declared the amendment illegal following a writ petition filed by nine Supreme Court lawyers.

On July 3 this year, a seven-member Appellate Division bench headed by Justice Sinha dismissed the State’s appeal against the High Court verdict. Now the full appeals verdict, upholding that one of the High Court, has been published.

Chief Justice Sinha, Justice Md Abdul Wahhab Miah, Justice Nazmun Ara Sultana, Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain, Justice Muhammad Imman Ali, Justice Hasan Foez Siddique, and Justice Mirza Hussain Haider wrote separate judgements, but opined in favour of repealing the 16th Amendment.

Justice Sultana fully agreed with the verdict written by the chief justice.

In his reaction to the full verdict, lawyer Manzill Murshid, who represented the writ petitioners at the hearing, said, “The Supreme Judicial Council has been automatically reinstated by this verdict. It means judges will be removed through the Council from now on, if necessary.”

On the other hand, Attorney General Mahbubey Alam said it up to the government to decide whether to seek a review of the appeals verdict or not.

Law Minister Anisul Huq denied comment before reading the full verdict.

Supreme Judicial Council
Through the restoration of six clauses of Article 96, the Supreme Judicial Council provision, introduced during military ruler Ziaur Rahman’s tenure in 1977 for the removal of top judges, has been reinstated.

The old Clause 3 of the article says the Council shall consist of the chief justice and two next senior judges.

If a member of the Council is the judge being inquired, or absent, the judge next in seniority shall replace him or her.

Clause 4 says the Council’s function will be to prescribe a code of conduct for the judges and to inquire into the capacity or conduct of a judge.

According to Clause 5, the President may direct the Council to launch an inquiry if he or she receives information on a judge being incapable of properly doing his duty for physical or mental reasons, or being accused of gross misconduct.

If the Council finds truth in the information on the judge’s incapability or the allegation of misconduct, the president shall order the judge’s removal, Clause 6 says.

According to Clause 7, the Council shall regulate its own procedure and shall have the same power as the Supreme Court in execution of processes.
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/08/02/bd-top-court-revives-supreme-judicial-council-sack-judges/

Verdict on 16th Amendment: Lawmakers tear into higher courts

File photo of the parliament session inside Jatiya Sangsad.

Staff Correspondent
Seniors ministers and MPs from the treasury and opposition benches yesterday launched a blistering attack on the High Court and the Supreme Court for judgments against the Jatiya Sangsad's power to remove their judges for incapacity or misconduct.

Speaking in the JS on points of order, the ministers and MPs, including Agriculture Minister Matia Chowdhury, Commerce Minister Tofail Ahmed, Civil Aviation Minister Rashed Khan Menon, and Information Minister Hasanul Haq Inu, called upon the government to take a realistic decision on the issue.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was in the House at the time.

The ministers and MPs hoped that the SC would restore the 16th amendment once the government files a review petition against the apex court verdict.

Following the two-and-a-half-hour unscheduled discussion, Speaker Shirin Sharmin Chaudhury said as the matter was significant and constitution related, further discussions would be held in parliament on a specific day.


Lambasting the top court, the discussants termed the verdict “unexpected” and said the SC has to prove how parliamentarians have “challenged the basic structure” of the constitution by passing the 16th amendment.

The lawmakers came down heavily on the amici curiae, especially Dr Kamal Hossain and Barrister M Amirul Islam, for opposing the 16th amendment.

They claimed that being “opportunist”, a number of members of the amici curiae, appointed by the SC, had provided “false and fabricated” information to the court.

The lawmakers said if the parliament had the power to impeach the president, the Speaker and the prime minister, then why could it not impeach the SC judges for misconduct or incapacity?

The parliament in September 2014 passed the 16th amendment, which abolished the chief justice-led Supreme Judicial Council and restored the authority of parliament to remove SC judges.

The High Court in May last year ruled that the 16th amendment was illegal and unconstitutional. It said the amendment went against the principles of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.

On January 4, the government filed an appeal with the SC against the HC verdict.

A seven-member SC bench, led by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, on July 3 unanimously upheld the HC verdict.

Arguments during the hearing of the appeal and the HC's observations made it clear that article 70 of the constitution, which prevents MPs from working independently in parliament, largely contributed to the amendment being declared illegal.

In its verdict, the HC strongly criticised article 70 as well as the lack of unity among political parties.

While dealing with the appeal, the SC in February requested 12 senior jurists to place their opinion.

The 12 member amici curiae include Justice (retd) TH Khan, Dr Kamal Hossain, barristers Amirul Islam, AF Hasan Arif, Ajmalul Hossain, Rafiqul Haque, Shafique Ahmed, Rokonuddin Mahmud, MI Farooqui, Fida M Kamal and lawyers Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan, and AJ Mohammad Ali.

Nine of them recommended scrapping the amendment. One spoke in favour of it while the other two did not give any opinion.

AL MP and Commerce Minister Tofail Ahmed in his speech yesterday said, “Even the president, the prime minister and the speaker can be impeached by parliament. Then why they [judges] cannot be impeached by parliament?”

Mentioning that parliaments of almost all countries have the power to impeach judges, Tofail called upon the law minister to take realistic measures to restore the 16th amendment.

Pointing to arguments made by the amici curiae, especially Dr Kamal Hossain and M Amirul Islam, Tofail said they had delivered the “worst speech” before the SC. He said their speeches were full of misleading information.

“I am surprised that they identify themselves as the architect of the constitution. But they gave totally false information that India and many other countries at present do not have the provision for parliament to impeach judges,” he added.

He said Dr Kamal and Amirul had earlier commented that the 1972 constitution was perfect and that it was one of the best constitutions in the sub-continent.

“But now they are speaking against the 1972 constitution … .”

Tofail said the duo argued in favour of the Supreme Judicial Council which is present in Pakistan's constitution.

“I have no words to condemn them. They are opportunists.”

Pointing to weakness of the judicial council system, Tofail said, “How would subordinate judges try allegations brought against the chief justice?”

Taking part in the discussion, Matia Chowdhury questioned how the SC judges could judge their own misbehaviours and irregularities.

She said that on at least four occasions the judicial councils did not find allegations of irregularities and misconduct against judges to be true.

“A few months ago, additional registrar, on the order of chief justice, had asked not to probe allegation raised against an SC judge by the ACC,” she said.

She said a judge has circulated leaflets urging a halt to war crimes trial but the supreme judicial council did not see it to be improper behaviour. Another judge had forged his LLB certificate but the council saw no irregularities.

Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal MP Mayeen Uddin Khan Badal, who initiated the attack on the SC, taking the floor on a point of order said, “They should make clear how parliamentarians have challenged the basic structures of the constitution.”

“An apex court verdict has declared military dictator Ziaur Rahman's rule illegal, how can the court now restore the system of Supreme Judicial Council introduced during the tenure of the dictator?”

Awami League lawmaker Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim said, “We all know that the judiciary is independent … the hands of judiciary cannot be longer than that of the parliament.”

People who were opposing the 16th amendment were trying to create a conflict between parliament and the judiciary, Selim said.

Rashed Khan Menon said a vested quarter was trying to create division between parliament and the judiciary.

He said Ayub Khan introduced the Supreme Judicial Council system and it was included through the 5th amendment.

Jatiya Party lawmaker Zaiuddin Ahmed, AL lawmaker Ali Ashraf and other MPs taking part in the discussion said the apex court verdict would be reviewed and the 16th amendment would be restored.

Information minister Hasanul Haq Inu said the Appellate Division verdict was somehow “motivated” and “part of a conspiracy”.

http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/verdict-16th-amendment-lawmakers-tear-higher-courts-1430734

12:00 AM, August 02, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 03:05 AM, August 02, 2017
Fourth Amendment: It 'impairs freedom of lower judiciary'
Shakhawat Liton

The amendment giving the president the power to have control over lower courts violates the basic structure of the constitution as the change impairs the independence of the lower judiciary, observed the Supreme Court in the 16th amendment case verdict.

According to the SC verdict, the independence of the judiciary is one of the basic structures of the constitution and parliament cannot bring any change that goes against it.

The original article 116 of 1972 constitution empowered the SC to have control over the affairs of lower judiciary, including the posting, promotion, grant of leave and discipline of the judges and judicial magistrates.

But parliament through the fourth amendment to the constitution during the AL rule in 1975 scrapped that authority of the SC and gave it to the president.

Later in 1978, during the martial law regime, the article was amended further through the martial law proclamation and a provision was introduced saying the president would exercise the authority in consultation with the SC.

In 2011, the 15th amendment to the constitution retained the same provision in article 116.

"By this substitution of the word 'President' for the words 'Supreme Court' in article 116, the independence of the lower judiciary has been totally impaired, curtailed and whittled down," observed the SC in the 16th amendment verdict, delivered on July 3.

"This amendment [fourth amendment], therefore, violates the basic structure of the constitution and therefore this substitution of the word 'President' is ultra vires the constitution."

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, ultra vires, a Latin phrase, means beyond the scope or in excess of legal power or authority.

“Though there was a provision for consultation in exercising this power, practically this consultation is meaningless if the executive does not cooperate with the Supreme Court,” the court added.

It further said current article 116 is also inconsistent with article 109 and 116A.

Article 116 says, “The control (including the power of posting, promotion and grant of leave) and discipline of persons employed in the judicial service and magistrates exercising judicial functions shall vest in the President and shall be exercised by him in consultation with the Supreme Court.”

Article 109, which has been in the constitution since 1972, reads: "The High Court Division shall have superintendence and control over all courts and tribunals subordinate to it."

And article 116A, introduced by the fourth amendment, says: "Subject to provisions of the constitution, all persons employed in the judicial service and all magistrates shall be independent in the exercise of their judicial functions."

At first sight, it may seem that the president has been empowered by the amendment to article 116. But in reality, he himself cannot exercise the power. The prime minister exercises the power as the president performs all his functions on advice of the prime minister, except for the appointment of the PM and the chief justice.

"There cannot be any independence in the judiciary if the disciplinary mechanism including the power of appointment, posting and promotion of the officers of the lower and higher judiciary are kept in the hands of the executive," said the SC verdict.

It also said there is no mechanism under the scheme of the constitution as to how the executive branch shall control the power of posting, promotion and discipline of persons employed in the judicial service and the higher judiciary.

"Keeping articles 116 and 116A intact and substituting article 96 [empowering parliament to remove SC judges], the judiciary is totally crippled now. This has caused embarrassment on the part of the Chief Justice in the administration of justice in higher and lower judiciary to the knowledge of the Executive."

The full text of the judgment was released yesterday.

It said there were 12 amendments to the constitution after the fourth amendment. None of the governments took any step in this regard despite the observations by this court in 5th, 8th and 13th amendment cases.

In the verdicts in those cases, the apex court stressed the need for restoration of the original article 116.

Of the seven members of the Appellate Division bench, the chief justice and two other judges agreed with the findings about article 116 in the 16th amendment verdict. One judge disagreed while three others did not make any comment.

In the verdict, the SC said the subordinate judiciary has been brought most closely into contact with the people. "It is thus no less important, perhaps indeed even more important that its independence should be placed beyond question. To establish the rule of law, the subordinate judiciary must also be independent and impartial.”

It added, "Shocking situation now the judiciary is facing that till now nothing has been done to give effect to article 22 despite the direction given in Masder Hossain.”

Article 22 says: "The State shall ensure the separation of the judiciary from the executive organs of the State."

As successive governments since 1972 refrained from separating the judiciary from the executive, the High Court in a landmark verdict in May 1997 asked the government to separate the judiciary in line with the constitutional provision.

The then AL-government challenged the HC judgment and filed an appeal with the Appellate Division.

Upholding the HC verdict, the Appellate Division in its milestone ruling in December 1999 issued a 12-point directive to the government to separate the judiciary.

The government then opted to buy time to take necessary measures, like formulation of rules and regulations, to implement the judgment until the tenure of the AL-led government ended in October 2001.

After the changeover in power, the BNP-led government in its five-year tenure did the same.

Both AL and BNP governments from 1999 to 2006 took more than two dozen time extensions to complete the necessary work.

Finally, it was the caretaker government of 2007-08 that took effective steps to separate the judiciary.

In November 2007, the then caretaker government officially separated the judiciary from the executive. Some rules were also made.

The process was not completed as the rules determining the discipline and code of conduct for lower court judges were not made.

Over seven years after the official separation of the judiciary, the government drafted rules in 2015 and sent those to the SC for its opinion last year.

In the draft rules, which deal with issues like posting, promotion, grant of leave and discipline of judges and judicial magistrates, the law ministry included some provisions to retain the power to control the lower judiciary.

The SC revised the draft by curtailing the law ministry's control over lower judiciary and sent it back to the government for issuing a gazette to this effect.

But the government refrained from doing so and took time extension for more than a dozen times.

In the latest move, the law ministry brought some changes in the draft rules and submitted it to the chief justice last week.

The proposed changes gave the president the authority to play significant role in taking disciplinary actions against lower court judges and judicial magistrates and carrying out investigation into allegations against judicial officials working at other ministries on deputation.

The changes irked the apex court and on Sunday it refused to accept in full the draft rules.

The law minister on Monday defended article 116 and alleged that the SC wants to take away the president's power provided under the article.
http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/fourth-amendment-it-impairs-freedom-lower-judiciary-1442272

12:00 AM, August 02, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 03:06 AM, August 02, 2017
Supreme Judicial Council restored
Top court unveils 39-point code of conduct for judges
Ashutosh Sarkar

The provision of Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for the removal of SC judges for misconduct or incapacity has been reinstated in the constitution, the apex court said in its full verdict on the 16th constitutional amendment.

In the verdict released yesterday, the court also came up with a 39-point code of conduct it formulated for the SC judges in exercise of powers under the article 96 of the country's charter.

The article 96 which was scrapped by the 16th amendment deals with the procedure for formation and functions of the SJC and formulation of the code of conduct.

The 16th amendment made in September 2014 had abolished the chief justice led SJC and restored parliament's power to remove the judges. The amendment was challenged with the High Court.

In May last year, the HC declared the amendment unconstitutional and void as it found the changes went against the principles of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.

The government filed an appeal against the HC verdict. In July last year, the Appellate Division of the SC rejected the appeal and upheld the HC verdict.

In the full verdict, the Appellate Division said the independence of judiciary has been undermined and curtailed by making the judiciary “vulnerable to a process of removal of the judges by parliament”.

The procedure entailed in the SJC is more in consonance with the spirit of the constitutional scheme, it said, adding that the provision of the SJC is not only for the interest of justice, but also for the independence of judiciary.

Comprising the chief justice and two other senior judges of the Appellate Division, the SJC investigates allegations of misconduct of any judge and makes necessary recommendations to the president for the next course of action.

The original constitution of 1972 had empowered parliament to remove SC judges. But the fourth amendment to the constitution in 1975 scrapped parliament's power and empowered the president to remove the SC judges.

The president's power was curtailed in 1978 through a martial law proclamation and the SJC was introduced. It was ratified and validated by the fifth amendment to the constitution in 1979.

In 2005, the HC declared the fifth amendment illegal but condoned the introduction of the SJC.

In February 2010, the SC upheld the 2005 HC verdict, and said the system of SJC would be valid till December 31, 2011.

Around six months before the provision on the SJC was to expire, the Awami League-led government included it in the 15th amendment to the constitution, allowing the SJC to continue.

But later in September 2014, the AL government abolished the decades-old SJC.

In the full verdict, the apex court also said the independence of the judiciary is the foundation stone of the constitution and as contemplated by article 22, it is one of the fundamental principles of state policy.

The significance of an independent judiciary, free from the interference of other two organs of the government as embodied in article 22, has been emphasised in articles 94(4), 116A and 147 of the constitution, it added.

"Without a political tradition in which members of Parliament could clearly demonstrate that they can act neutrally and impartially if they are given the power of removal and will not be affected by the party's views under article 70, the purported process of impeachment introduced by the 16th amendment would clearly undermine the independence of judiciary and will definitely alter the basic structure of the constitution,” said the verdict.

According to Article 70, a lawmaker has to vacate his or her seat if he or she votes in parliament against the party which nominated him or her.

“The object of this article is no doubt discernible that it is to ensure stability and continuity of government and also to ensure discipline among the members of the political parties so that corruption and instability due to political horse trading can be removed from national politics.

“By reason of article 70 of our constitution and its impact on members of Parliament leads to the irresistible conclusion that this new mechanism cannot be expected to function independently and neutrally if a judge attracts displeasure from the political party in power, he may be subjected to removal by parliament,” the SC said in the verdict.

Meanwhile, Law Minister Anisul Huq yesterday told The Daily Star he would not comment on the SC verdict without going through the full text.

Attorney General Mahbubey Alam expressed sorrow at the restoration of SJC, saying that system had been introduced by “military rulers”.

CODE OF CONDUCT
Formulating the code of conduct, the SC said a judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary is preserved.

A judge should respect and comply with the constitution and law, and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary, it said.

The SC also said, “A judge should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should not lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of others; nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

“A Judge should be faithful to and maintain professional competence in the law, and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamour, or fear of criticism,” it said.

It added, “A Judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity.

“A judge should dispose of promptly the business of the court including avoiding inordinate delay in delivering judgments/orders. In no case a judgment shall be signed later than six months of the date of delivery of judgment,” the apex court said, adding that a judge should avoid public comment on the merit of a pending or impending court case.

“A judge shall disqualify himself/herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. A judge shall disqualify himself/herself to hear a matter/cause where he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or with whom the judge previously practiced during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness,” it said.

According to the code of conduct, a judge shall not hear any matter if he/she knows or if he/she is aware or if it is brought into his/her notice that, individually or as a fiduciary, the judge or the judge's spouse or children have a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or is a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially.

A judge should not engage directly or indirectly in trade or business, either by himself or in association with any other person.

A judge must at all times be conscious that he is under the public gaze and there should be no act or omission by him which is unbecoming of his office and the public esteem in which that office is held, it said, adding that a judge should not engage in any political activities, whatsoever in the country and abroad.

A judge shall disclose his assets and liabilities, if asked for, by the chief justice, it said, adding that a judge should not permit any member of his immediate family, such as spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law or daughter-in-law or any other close relative, if a member of the Bar, to appear before him or even be associated in any manner with a cause to be dealt with by him.

The SC said in the code of conduct that no member of his family, who is a member of the Bar, shall be permitted to use the residence in which the judge actually resides or other facilities for professional work.

A judge shall not enter into public debate or express his views in public on political matters or on matters that are pending or are likely to arise for judicial determination, it said, adding that a judge is expected to let his judgments speak for themselves. He shall not give interview to the media.

The above code of conduct and the ethical values to be followed by a judge, failing which, it shall be considered as gross misconduct, the SC said in the verdict.

http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/supreme-judicial-council-restored-1442266

 

[Banglar Bir]

12:00 AM, August 03, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 12:14 AM, August 03, 2017
THE THIRD VIEW
Take the SC's comments to heart
It would be a mistake to see it as a judiciary vs. executive conflict

Mahfuz Anam

Given the fact that the current government has been able to effectively shut down all critical voices and sufficiently silence the media with highly repressive laws—namely the ICT Act—the full verdict of the Supreme Court (SC) judgement on the defunct 16th Amendment to the Constitution may come to the present rulers as somewhat of a shock. In it the SC made some very pertinent and insightful but critical comments on the present political and administrative situation in the country focusing on the failures of the executive branch.

Given our political culture and past experience, such comments are not likely to be taken well either by the government or by the party-line bound members of the parliament.

But what the Supreme Court said is far beyond a typical judiciary versus government tiff. In our view, it deals with some of the core values of our Liberation War and the fundamental structures of our Constitution that make Bangladesh a “Republic” in the real sense. The points made by the SC touch on what makes democracy functional and strongly criticise the deviations that threaten our achievements through decades of mass movement and the sacrifice of millions of lives in 1971.

Take the issue of “Check and Balance” as seen within the basic framework of our Constitution and which the SC found to be nonexistent in the present dispensation. Also, the observation that presently there is “no watchdog mechanism” at work.

Like every democratic constitution—and even some not-so-democratic ones—ours is based on a basic system of separation of powers between the various organs of the State: the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. To put it simplistically the first branch makes laws, the second runs the country on the basis of those laws and the third interprets whether the laws framed and the way the executive branch is implementing those laws fall within the scope of the constitution.

Of the three the executive branch, namely the government, is the most dynamic and active. It has to administer the country, collect taxes and provide the basic services to the people and do everything to protect their fundamental rights and provide opportunities for their prosperity. Its functions are highly complex and widespread, thus requiring constant supervision and monitoring. Often a government tends to exceed its remit which necessitates all sorts of restrain provided by the other two organs.

In a parliamentary form of government, by the very design of things, there is a very close relationship between the legislative and the executive organs. It is only by holding a majority in the legislative branch that a government can be formed, and as such these two branches work in tandem as seen by the regular holding of parliamentary sessions—at least every two months in our case—in which, theoretically, all major plans, projects and actions of the government are scrutinised, a process by which a government is both praised or criticised. In a constitution that does not have Article 70 like ours and where an MP is permitted to vote according to his or her conscience, a parliament can vote out a government if it loses its majority support.

Through the passing of the annual budget after threadbare consideration; its ministry based Standing Committees; examination of the Auditor-General's report; discussion on various bills; the question and answer sessions of the prime minister and other ministers; and, most importantly, open debates on the floor of parliament, the legislative branch is mandated to supervise the executive and keep its actions accountable.

Alas, we know it does not happen like that, and it is this fact that the SC is pointing out.

Instead of keeping the executive accountable, the legislature, in our case, appears to think that its sole task is to praise the government and criticise whosoever dares to criticise the government. The vital discussion on the annual budget has seldom asked why cost overruns and project delays are norms rather than exceptions. Why have scandals in Sonali and Basic banks, or the Bangladesh Bank reserve swindle, or the persistent phenomenon of bank default which seems to be growing every year, never found effective attention in the parliament from our “peoples' representatives” as if it all happened in some other land, not in ours?

If we recall Lord Acton's famous saying that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” then we can clearly see the justification of some other observations of the Supreme Court such as “rampant corruption” and “plague-like greed for power.”

One particular comment of the Supreme Court which our lawmakers are not likely to take kindly to is that our “parliament is dysfunctional.” It is quite possible that all hell may break loose with our MPs accusing the SC of insulting the parliament and trying to undermine people's representatives and thereby democracy itself and the like.

Yet, this particular comment, as distinct from all others, should lead to a very serious introspection by our parliamentarians because it directly deals with their activities.

Struggle for an effective parliament dates back to our Pakistan days. It took Pakistan nine years to make its first constitution in 1956, and then it took two years to abrogate it through General Ayub's martial law. The first truly free and fair national election in Pakistan was held in 1970, 23 years after its birth, in which Bangabandhu won a majority. Parliament was not allowed to sit as scheduled and the rest is history.

After 1971, we had our first parliament in 1973 but our experiment with democracy was destroyed with the brutal murder of the founder of our state, Bangabandhu.

It was only in 1991, with the fall of the autocratic rule of General Ershad and the restoration of democracy that we relaunched our parliamentary experiment which, we can proudly say, has been in place for the last 26 years.

However, the sad truth is that we have not been able to establish a robust tradition of contested democracy as we should have had. Much of that time was consumed by boycotts by the opposition that would start with occasional “walkouts” then months of “boycott” and finally “resignation” from the House altogether. Our relentless writings that parliament is the “House of the People” and not of the government and that boycotting it or resigning from it means betraying the very voters that elected them, fell on deaf ears of both the parties that dominated our politics and shared power since 1991—namely the AL and the BNP.

The net result was that without an effective opposition—in fact none whatsoever most of the time—no tradition of debate, accountability or monitoring the government or playing any sort of “watchdog” role developed.

The parliamentary opposition mostly played the “opposition for opposition's sake” game and always appeared to prefer street agitation to a robust accountability process within the House.

So the Sangsad, instead of becoming the centre point of institutionalising democracy, became the centre point of reckless and meaningless opposition-bashing on the one hand and sycophancy on the other, and never the “watchdog” that it was meant to be.

Normally, many of these points raised by the SC would have been forcefully presented by the media. That situation, I am sad to say, no longer exists. In these circumstances the Supreme Court's full verdict stands as the most authentic and comprehensive tour d'horizon of the present situation. It may be hard to accept, but honest judgements usually are. We hope that instead of a knee-jerk reaction, the present ruling leadership will see the merit of the criticisms made and do their own homework so that all the vital organs of our constitution can work together and establish a functional state under law in this beautiful and extremely challenged country of ours.

Mahfuz Anam is Editor and Publisher of The Daily Star.
http://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/the-third-view/take-the-scs-comments-heart-1442620

Rights at stake, corruption rampant: SC
Executive trying to cripple judiciary
M Moneruzzaman | Published: 00:05, Aug 03,2017 | Updated: 00:28, Aug 03,2017

The Appellate Division in its 799-page verdict on the 16th Amendment, released on Tuesday, said in the observations that human rights in the country were at stake, corruption was rampant and Parliament -- dysfunctional.

The verdict, upheld the High Court judgement which struck down the 16th Amendment that restored Parliament’s power to remove Supreme Court judges.

The apex court also said in the observations that crores of people were deprived of basic health care, crimes are increasing, acute mismanagement marked the administration, the life became utterly insecure, the law enforcing agencies were unable to tackle the situation.

The court said that the combined result of all this, is a crippled society, a society where good man does not dream of good things at all; but the bad man is all the more restless to grab a few more of bounty.
In such a situation, the executive branch became arrogant and uncontrolled and the bureaucracy will never opt for efficiency, the court said.

The court said, instead of strengthening the judiciary, the executive branch is now trying to cripple it and if it happens, there could be disastrous consequences.
The court said, ‘Even after forty-six years of independence, we have not been able to institutionalize any public institutions.

‘There are no checks and balances, there is no watchdog mechanism at work, thus the people in the position are being indulged into abuse of power and showing audacity of freehand exercise of power.
‘The state power, which is another dimension of political power, is becoming a monopoly of a few now-a-days and this suicidal tendency of concentration of power is increasing.’

The court said that greed for power, just like plague, once set in motion will try to devour everything.
‘Needless to say, this was not at all the aims and vision of our liberation struggle. Our Forefathers fought to establish a democratic state, not to produce any power-monster,’ the court said.
The court said that after independence, those unholy alliances of power-mongers twice reduced the country to a banana Republic, where people were seen as commodity which can be bluffed and compromised at any unworthy cost to legalize their illegitimate exercise of power.
‘Politics is no longer free, it is now highly commercial and money is in the driving seat which controls the course of action and its destination,’ the court said.

The court said that now power, not merit, tends to control all public institutions of the country.
The court said that irony of the history is that with the unflinching determination and indomitable spirit, we were able to free a country from the clutches of a military superpower but we have been measurably defeated by ourselves in that very free country.

The court said that before assuming the powers the members of Parliament should have considered as to whether they are capable of dealing with such responsibility.

‘This is what we call ‘institutional virtuosity’ by itself is not enough without ‘individual virtuosity’ and we have to strive for that if we really want to build the Bangabandhu’s dream of ‘Sonar Bangla’,’ the court said.
http://www.newagebd.net/article/21082/rights-at-stake-corruption-rampant-sc

 

[TopCat]

Looks like supreme court is standing tall under Mr. Sinha.

 

[Banglar Bir]

12:00 AM, August 03, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 03:57 AM, August 03, 2017
'Govt argument to empower JS arbitrary'
Shakhawat Liton

The argument for empowering the parliament to remove Supreme Court judges for restoration of 1972 constitution appears as "cheap, populistic, whimsical, arbitrary and sentimental," observed the SC in the 16th constitutional amendment case verdict.

The 16th amendment made in September 2014 had abolished the chief justice led Supreme Judicial Council and restored parliament's power to remove the SC judges on grounds of misconduct or incapacity. The amendment was challenged with the High Court.

In May last year, the HC declared the amendment unconstitutional and void as it found the changes went against the principles of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.

In July last year, the Appellate Division of the SC rejected the appeal and upheld the HC verdict.

During the hearing of the appeal filed by the government against the HC verdict that scrapped the 16th amendment, the attorney general and his colleague had repeatedly made the argument of “1972 constitution” in favour of keeping the 16th amendment as it was.

Prior and after the 16th amendment that had restored the parliament's power to impeach SC judges on grounds of misconduct or incapacity some ministers and ruling party MPs had portrayed it as an effort to return to the original constitution of 1972.

"It appears that going back to the 1972 Constitution is a simple play on the psyche of the public, including the politicians in Parliament. It is 'playing to the gallery' to gain popularity by targeting the 'liberation war sentiment' of the people," observed the apex court in its full verdict released on Tuesday.

The apex court also termed the argument as "cheap, populistic and sentimental argument" and found no logic behind it.

In the verdict, the apex court judges listed some provisions in the constitution which were inserted by the Martial Law Proclamations and by other constitutional amendments, but they were not erased from the constitution by the 15th or the 16th amendments made in 2011 and 2014 by the Awami League government.

Those provisions include status of state religion, the phrase “bismillah-ar-rahman-ar-rahim”- (in the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful) above the preamble of the constitution, appointment of SC judges to judicial or quasi-judicial bodies after their retirement, giving the president power to control lower judiciary.

In the original constitution, the SC has been given the authority to have full control over the lower judiciary.

"It appears that the desire of reverting to the 1972 Constitution has been carried out somewhat whimsically and arbitrarily."

It was argued before the court that the provision for removal of SC judges by parliament has been included in the 1972 constitution and this should not be questioned.

The apex court did not agree with this argument.

"Using the words used in the 1972 Constitution will not make any such amendment sacrosanct and unquestionable. The Constitution of 1972 has sacrosanctity only because it was 'plenary law' created for the first time by the will of the people and there is nothing against which to compare or test its validity," said the court.

"This is absolutely a novel argument of the learned Attorney General and the learned Additional Attorney General just to give a seal of legitimacy to Sixteenth Amendment by capitalising easy sentiment."

The attorney general had also argued that the Supreme Judicial Council was cancelled by the 16th amendment as it was the intention of the parliament to rid the constitution of any vestiges of Martial Law Proclamation.

The apex court made the following observations in response to the arguments made by the attorney general.

It said the original 1972 constitution describes the Government of Bangladesh as "secular", but in 1977 an executive proclamation deleted the word "secular" and inserted a phrase stating that a fundamental State principle is "absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah".

"The phrase “bismillah-ar-rahman-ar-rahim”- (in the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful) was inserted before the Preamble of the Constitution. Undoubtedly these were political moves in order to strengthen relationships with the Muslim countries, including wealthy Arab oil-producing countries," it adds.

But no attempt has been made to erase these amendments from the constitution. On the contrary, after lengthy discussion, there was a conscious decision to retain these provisions, it adds.

The court said by the eighth amendment, Islam has been given the status of state religion. But in order to cope with the religious sentiment, it was retained though secularism was restored by the fifteenth amendment in 2011.

"Thereby, the principle of secularism was totally compromised and thus buried the spirit of original constitution and liberation war, as was espoused in the 1972 constitution," said the apex court.

It said article 99 of the 1972 constitution provided that a SC judge after retirement or removal could not practice as a lawyer in any court or before any authority nor could be appointed in any post of the country.

The court said martial law proclamations amended this article and allowed judges to be appointed in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity and permitted a judge of the HC to practice in the Appellate Division after retirement or termination of service, said the SC verdict.

"These amendments were validated by the Fifth Amendment. This amendment was declared unconstitutional, but the Fifteenth Amendment reintroduced article 99 as amended by the Martial Law Proclamations," reads the verdict.

It is interesting, the court said, to note that in the original 1972 constitution there was provision for the President to be sworn in by the chief justice. The fourth amendment provided that the President would be sworn in by the Speaker.

"Thereafter the Martial Law Proclamations reverted back to the position whereby the President would be sworn in by the Chief Justice. The Fifteenth amendment reverted to the position under the Fourth Amendment, and not the 1972 Constitution, thus the President is to be sworn in by the Speaker. That is the position as it stands to date," said the SC verdict.

The court said: "If it was the intention of Parliament to revert to the 1972 Constitution, then the provision should allow the Chief Justice to swear in the President. Hence, it appears that the desire of reverting to the 1972 Constitution has been carried out somewhat whimsically and arbitrarily."

The Constitution of Bangladesh became effective on 16th December 1972, one year after liberation.

In the preamble of the 16th constitutional amendment bill placed in parliament in 2014, the law minister cited some reasons to defend the change.

One of his arguments was that the policy to ensure accountability of higher court judges to the parliament exists in most of the democratic countries in the world.

In the verdict, the apex court however, said: "It is known to the whole world that we achieved independence at the cost of 3(three) million people."

"So, whatever amendment has to be made in our Constitution must be made according to our need keeping in view our socio economic and political condition and public opinion as the foundation of necessity,” hoped the SC. It added that the rule of law which is the fabric of our constitution must not be impaired in any condition.

It further stated: "By referring to the practice/system prevalent in the other countries in the bill of Sixteenth Amendment “we, the people of Bangladesh”, have been undermined, disgraced, degraded, belittled and disrespected."
http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/desire-reverting-72-constitution-whimsical-arbitrary-1442797

12:00 AM, August 03, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 03:57 AM, August 03, 2017
'Govt argument to empower JS arbitrary'
Shakhawat Liton

The argument for empowering the parliament to remove Supreme Court judges for restoration of 1972 constitution appears as "cheap, populistic, whimsical, arbitrary and sentimental," observed the SC in the 16th constitutional amendment case verdict.

The 16th amendment made in September 2014 had abolished the chief justice led Supreme Judicial Council and restored parliament's power to remove the SC judges on grounds of misconduct or incapacity. The amendment was challenged with the High Court.

In May last year, the HC declared the amendment unconstitutional and void as it found the changes went against the principles of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary.

In July last year, the Appellate Division of the SC rejected the appeal and upheld the HC verdict.

During the hearing of the appeal filed by the government against the HC verdict that scrapped the 16th amendment, the attorney general and his colleague had repeatedly made the argument of “1972 constitution” in favour of keeping the 16th amendment as it was.


Prior and after the 16th amendment that had restored the parliament's power to impeach SC judges on grounds of misconduct or incapacity some ministers and ruling party MPs had portrayed it as an effort to return to the original constitution of 1972.

"It appears that going back to the 1972 Constitution is a simple play on the psyche of the public, including the politicians in Parliament. It is 'playing to the gallery' to gain popularity by targeting the 'liberation war sentiment' of the people," observed the apex court in its full verdict released on Tuesday.

The apex court also termed the argument as "cheap, populistic and sentimental argument" and found no logic behind it.

In the verdict, the apex court judges listed some provisions in the constitution which were inserted by the Martial Law Proclamations and by other constitutional amendments, but they were not erased from the constitution by the 15th or the 16th amendments made in 2011 and 2014 by the Awami League government.

Those provisions include status of state religion, the phrase “bismillah-ar-rahman-ar-rahim”- (in the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful) above the preamble of the constitution, appointment of SC judges to judicial or quasi-judicial bodies after their retirement, giving the president power to control lower judiciary.

In the original constitution, the SC has been given the authority to have full control over the lower judiciary.

"It appears that the desire of reverting to the 1972 Constitution has been carried out somewhat whimsically and arbitrarily."

It was argued before the court that the provision for removal of SC judges by parliament has been included in the 1972 constitution and this should not be questioned.

The apex court did not agree with this argument.

"Using the words used in the 1972 Constitution will not make any such amendment sacrosanct and unquestionable. The Constitution of 1972 has sacrosanctity only because it was 'plenary law' created for the first time by the will of the people and there is nothing against which to compare or test its validity," said the court.

"This is absolutely a novel argument of the learned Attorney General and the learned Additional Attorney General just to give a seal of legitimacy to Sixteenth Amendment by capitalising easy sentiment."

The attorney general had also argued that the Supreme Judicial Council was cancelled by the 16th amendment as it was the intention of the parliament to rid the constitution of any vestiges of Martial Law Proclamation.

The apex court made the following observations in response to the arguments made by the attorney general.

It said the original 1972 constitution describes the Government of Bangladesh as "secular", but in 1977 an executive proclamation deleted the word "secular" and inserted a phrase stating that a fundamental State principle is "absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah".

"The phrase “bismillah-ar-rahman-ar-rahim”- (in the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful) was inserted before the Preamble of the Constitution. Undoubtedly these were political moves in order to strengthen relationships with the Muslim countries, including wealthy Arab oil-producing countries," it adds.

But no attempt has been made to erase these amendments from the constitution. On the contrary, after lengthy discussion, there was a conscious decision to retain these provisions, it adds.

The court said by the eighth amendment, Islam has been given the status of state religion. But in order to cope with the religious sentiment, it was retained though secularism was restored by the fifteenth amendment in 2011.

"Thereby, the principle of secularism was totally compromised and thus buried the spirit of original constitution and liberation war, as was espoused in the 1972 constitution," said the apex court.

It said article 99 of the 1972 constitution provided that a SC judge after retirement or removal could not practice as a lawyer in any court or before any authority nor could be appointed in any post of the country.

The court said martial law proclamations amended this article and allowed judges to be appointed in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity and permitted a judge of the HC to practice in the Appellate Division after retirement or termination of service, said the SC verdict.

"These amendments were validated by the Fifth Amendment. This amendment was declared unconstitutional, but the Fifteenth Amendment reintroduced article 99 as amended by the Martial Law Proclamations," reads the verdict.

It is interesting, the court said, to note that in the original 1972 constitution there was provision for the President to be sworn in by the chief justice. The fourth amendment provided that the President would be sworn in by the Speaker.

"Thereafter the Martial Law Proclamations reverted back to the position whereby the President would be sworn in by the Chief Justice. The Fifteenth amendment reverted to the position under the Fourth Amendment, and not the 1972 Constitution, thus the President is to be sworn in by the Speaker. That is the position as it stands to date," said the SC verdict.

The court said: "If it was the intention of Parliament to revert to the 1972 Constitution, then the provision should allow the Chief Justice to swear in the President. Hence, it appears that the desire of reverting to the 1972 Constitution has been carried out somewhat whimsically and arbitrarily."

The Constitution of Bangladesh became effective on 16th December 1972, one year after liberation.

In the preamble of the 16th constitutional amendment bill placed in parliament in 2014, the law minister cited some reasons to defend the change.

One of his arguments was that the policy to ensure accountability of higher court judges to the parliament exists in most of the democratic countries in the world.

In the verdict, the apex court however, said: "It is known to the whole world that we achieved independence at the cost of 3(three) million people."

"So, whatever amendment has to be made in our Constitution must be made according to our need keeping in view our socio economic and political condition and public opinion as the foundation of necessity,” hoped the SC. It added that the rule of law which is the fabric of our constitution must not be impaired in any condition.

It further stated: "By referring to the practice/system prevalent in the other countries in the bill of Sixteenth Amendment “we, the people of Bangladesh”, have been undermined, disgraced, degraded, belittled and disrespected."
http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/desire-reverting-72-constitution-whimsical-arbitrary-1442797

 

[Banglar Bir]

সুপ্রিম কোর্টের ঐতিহাসিক রায়ে ভয়াবহ সংকটের মুখোমুখি সরকার
Government in Serious Dielamma over Historic Verdict of the Supreme Court

03 Aug, 2017
ড তুহিন মালিক

মঙ্গলবার প্রকাশিত হয়েছে ষোড়শ সংশোধনী অবৈধ ঘোষণার পূর্ণাঙ্গ রায়। প্রধান বিচারপতি তাঁর পর্যবেক্ষণে “যত্রতত্র ক্ষমতার অপব্যবহারে গণতান্ত্রিক রাষ্ট্রের বদলে ক্ষমতাধর দৈত্যে রুপান্তর, নিরপেক্ষ ও হস্তক্ষেপমুক্ত নির্বাচনের অভাবে অবিকশিত গণতন্ত্র, ঝুঁকিপূর্ন মানবাধিকার, অনিয়ন্ত্রিত দুর্নীতি, অকার্যকর সংসদ, প্রশাসনে বিশৃঙ্খলা, ক্ষমতার অপব্যবহার, নির্বাহী বিভাগের অসহিষ্ণু ও বেপরোয়া, বিচার বিভাগের স্বাধীনতায় হস্তক্ষেপ”সহ বিভিন্ন বিষয়ে সরকারের স্বরুপ তুলে ধরেছেন।

ক্ষমতাসীন হবার পর থেকে আওয়ামী লীগ অধিকাংশ ক্ষেত্রে আদালতের সেসব সিদ্ধান্ত ও পর্যবেক্ষণ তাদের পছন্দ হয়েছে, সেগুলোকে সানন্দে বরণ করতে দেখা গেছে। নিজেদের স্বার্থে কখনও তারা সংবিধানের দোহাই দিয়েছে। কখনও আবার আদালতের দোহাই দিয়ে কার্যসিদ্ধি করেছে। তত্বাবধায়ক সরকার বাতিল করতে গিয়ে বিচারপতি খায়রুল হকের ত্রয়োদশ সংশোধনী বাতিলের রায় ও পর্যবেক্ষণকে তারা তাদের স্বপক্ষে বড় যুক্তি হিসাবে দেখিয়েছিল।

এবার ষোড়শ সংশোধনী অবৈধ ঘোষণার পূর্ণাঙ্গ রায় প্রকাশের পর আওয়ামী লীগের সেই নেতারা নিশ্চিতভাবেই গলা ফাটিয়ে বলবেন যে, ‘আদালতের পর্যবেক্ষণের কোনো কার্যকারিতা নেই।’

কিন্তু সর্বোচ্চ আদালত হিসাবে সুপ্রিম কোর্টের ‘অবিটার ডিকটা’ মানার বাধ্যবাধকতা রয়েছে। হাইকোর্টের অবিটার ঐচ্ছিক হলেও, যেহেতু হাইকোর্টের অবিটারকে আপিল বিভাগ সমুন্নত রেখেছে, সেহেতু আপিল বিভাগের অবিটার ডিকটা মানার বাধ্যবাধকতা রয়েছে।

কেননা, ২০১৩ সালের ১৮ জুলাই ভারতের প্রধান বিচারপতি আলতামাশ কবীরের নেতৃত্বাধীন পাঁচ সদস্যের সুপ্রিম কোর্ট বেঞ্চ মত দেন, ‘বিচারপতি বি পি সিনহার নেতৃত্বাধীন তিন সদস্যের সুপ্রিম কোর্ট বেঞ্চ এর আগে (২০ মার্চ, ১৯৫৯) বলেছিলেন, সুপ্রিম কোর্টের অবিটার ডিকটা বা পর্যবেক্ষণের উল্লেখযোগ্য গুরুত্ব দিতে হবে। আমরা আজও তা সম্পূর্ণরূপে গ্রহণ করি। সংবিধানের ১৪১ অনুচ্ছেদের (আমাদের ১১১) আওতায় সুপ্রিম কোর্টের দেওয়া অবিটার ডিকটা মানার আইনগত বাধ্যবাধকতা আছে।’

মঙ্গলবারের প্রকাশিত পূর্নাঙ্গ রায়ে আপিল বিভাগের পুরো সাতজন বিচারপতিই একমত পোষণ করেছেন।

সুপ্রিম কোর্টের আপিল বিভাগ একযোগে পর্যবেক্ষণ দিয়েছেন যে ‘১৯৭৫ সালের চতুর্থ সংশোধনী ছিল সংবিধানের মৌলিক কাঠামোর পরিপন্থী’।

প্রধান বিচারপতি বলেছেন, ‘সংসদের উচিত নয় সুপ্রিমকোর্টের কোনো পর্যবেক্ষণ সম্পর্কে কোনো মন্তব্য বা কটাক্ষ করা।’

তত্ত্বাবধায়ক সরকার বিষয়ক ত্রয়োদশ সংশোধনীর বিষয়ে প্রধান বিচারপতি বলেছেন, ‘সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠের রায়ে আপিল বিভাগ মত দিয়েছিলেন যে, দুটি সংসদীয় নির্বাচন তত্ত্বাবধায়ক সরকারের অধীনে হতে পারে। তবে শর্ত হল, বিলুপ্ত হওয়া ৫৮(ক) অনুচ্ছেদের ৩ ও ৪ দফা অনুযায়ী সর্বশেষ অবসরপ্রাপ্ত প্রধান বিচারপতি কিংবা আপিল বিভাগের সর্বশেষ অবসরপ্রাপ্ত বিচারপতিকে প্রধান উপদেষ্টা পদে নিয়োগ করা যাবে না। প্রধান বিচারপতির নিয়োগ প্রক্রিয়ায় রাজনীতিকীকরণ হতে পারে, এদিকটি মাথায় রেখে আদালত উল্লিখিত নির্দেশনা দিয়েছিলেন।’

প্রধান বিচারপতি তাঁর পর্যবেক্ষণে বলেছেন- ‘গণতান্ত্রিক রাষ্ট্রের বদলে ক্ষমতাধর দৈত্যে রুপান্তর, রাজনীতির বাণিজ্যিকরণ, ক্ষমতার জোড়ে জনপ্রতিষ্ঠানসমূহ নিয়ন্ত্রণকরণ, ক্ষমতার অপব্যবহারে উৎসাহিত এবং যত্রতত্র ক্ষমতার অপব্যবহারের ধৃষ্টতা প্রদর্শন, অপ্রাতিষ্ঠানিক নির্বাচন কমিশন, জাতীয় সংসদ নির্বাচন নিরপেক্ষভাবে এবং কোনো হস্তক্ষেপ ছাড়া স্বাধীনভাবে না হতে পারলে গণতন্ত্র বিকশিত হতে পারে না, গ্রহণযোগ্য নির্বাচন ছাড়া গ্রহণযোগ্য সংসদ প্রতিষ্ঠা হয় না, মানবাধিকার ঝুঁকিতে, দুর্নীতি অনিয়ন্ত্রিত, সংসদ অকার্যকর, প্রশাসনে বিশৃঙ্খলা, খারাপ লোকেরা আরও লুটপাটে বেপরোয়া, ক্ষমতার অপব্যবহার ও দাম্ভিকতা দেখানোর ক্ষেত্রে বাধা দেওয়ার মতো কোনো প্রতিষ্ঠান নেই, জনগণের জানমালের নিরাপত্তা ভীষণ রকম ক্ষতিগ্রস্ত, আইনশৃঙ্খলা রক্ষাকারী বাহিনী পরিস্থিতি সামাল দিতে অক্ষম, নির্বাহী বিভাগ আরও অসহিষ্ণু ও বেপরোয়া হয়ে উঠেছে, আমলাতন্ত্র দক্ষতা অর্জনে চেষ্টাহীন, নির্বাহী বিভাগ দাম্ভিক নিয়ন্ত্রণহীন, নির্বাহী বিভাগ বিচার বিভাগের ক্ষমতা সংকুচিত করতে ধ্বংসাত্মকভাবে আগ্রহী, ৭০ অনুচ্ছেদের জন্য দলীয় সিদ্ধান্তের বাইরে সংসদ সদস্যদের প্রশ্ন তোলার স্বাধীনতা নেই, বিচার বিভাগের স্বাধীনতায় হস্তক্ষেপসহ’ সরকারের স্খলিত রুপ।

নিম্ন আদালতের নিয়ন্ত্রণ রাষ্ট্রপতির হাতে-এ সংক্রান্ত সংবিধানের ১১৬ অনুচ্ছেদকে অবৈধ বলেছে সুপ্রিম কোর্টের আপিল বিভাগ। প্রধান বিচারপতি সুরেন্দ্র কুমার সিনহাসহ আপিল বিভাগের আরো দুজন বিচারপতি এই অভিমত দিয়েছেন। ১১৬ অনুচ্ছেদ নিয়ে প্রধান বিচারপতি তার অভিমতে বলেন, “সংবিধানের চতুর্থ সংশোধনীর মাধ্যমে ১১৬ অনুচ্ছেদে সংশোধন আনা হয়। এতে ‘সুপ্রিম কোর্টের’ স্থলে ‘প্রেসিডেন্ট’ শব্দ সন্নিবেশিত হয়। এর মাধ্যমে জুডিশিয়াল সার্ভিসে কর্মরতদের নিয়োগ, বদলি, পদোন্নতির নিয়ন্ত্রণ প্রেসিডেন্টের কাছে ন্যস্ত করা হয়। এই ক্ষমতা প্রয়োগের ক্ষেত্রে যদিও সুপ্রিম কোর্টের সঙ্গে পরামর্শের বিধান রাখা হয়েছে, তথাপি তা অর্থহীন যদি নির্বাহী বিভাগ এক্ষেত্রে সুপ্রিম কোর্টকে সহযোগিতা না করে। আবার ১১৬ অনুচ্ছেদ সংবিধানের ১০৯ অনুচ্ছেদের সঙ্গে সরাসরি সাংঘর্ষিক। যেখানে বলা হয়েছে, অধস্তন সকল আদালত ও ট্রাইব্যুনালের তত্ত্বাবধান ও নিয়ন্ত্রণের ক্ষমতা হাইকোর্ট বিভাগের হাতে থাকবে।” প্রধান বিচারপতি অভিমতে বলেন, ‘আইনের শাসন প্রতিষ্ঠার জন্য অধস্তন আদালতকেও স্বাধীন ও নিরপেক্ষ হতে হবে। বিচার বিভাগ এখন এমন এক বেদনাদায়ক পরিস্থিতির মুখোমুখি যে মাসদার হোসেন মামলার রায়ে নির্দেশনা সত্ত্বেও সংবিধানের ২২ অনুচ্ছেদ কার্যকরে কিছুই করা হচ্ছে না।’

সরকারী দল হয়তো পরিকল্পনা নিয়েছে যে তারা সংসদের আগামী অধিবেশনে এই রায় ও পর্যবেক্ষণকে সংসদের ভিতরে তুলোধুনো করবে। কিন্তু সেটা করা হলে সরকারের অবৈধতার সংকট আরো বেশীমাত্রায় দীপ্তিমান হয়ে উঠবে।

ষোড়শ সংশোধনী অবৈধ ঘোষণার পূর্ণাঙ্গ রায় ও প্রধান বিচারপতির পর্যবেক্ষণ সরকারের বৈধতা ও আচরনের বিষয়ে বড় ধরনের প্রশ্নের অবতারনা করেছে, যা গায়ের জোড়ে দমন করার শক্তি সরকারের নেই।
http://www.newsonbd.net/newsdetail/detail/200/327035

এ রায়ের পর সরকার ক্ষমতায় থাকতে পারে না: ফখরুল
After this Verdict Government can not Stay in Power: Fakrul.

03 Aug, 2017

ষোড়শ সংশোধনী বাতিলের পূর্ণাঙ্গ রায় প্রকাশের পর সরকার আর ক্ষমতায় থাকতে পারে না বলে মন্তব্য করেছেন বিএনপি মহাসচিব মির্জা ফখরুল ইসলাম আলমগীর।

বৃহস্পতিবার দুপুরে নয়াপল্টনের কেন্দ্রীয় কার্যালয়ে আয়োজিত সংবাদ সম্মেলনে তিনি এ মন্তব্য করেন।

মির্জা ফখরুল বলেন, বিভিন্ন পত্রিকায় প্রকাশি সংবাদে দেখেছি, ষোড়শ সংশোধনীর রায়ে যা লেখা হয়েছে এরপর কোনো সভ্য দেশের সরকার ক্ষমতায় থাকতে পারে না। সরকারের পদত্যাগ করা উচিত। আমরা সরকারকে পদত্যাগের আহ্বান জানাচ্ছি।

শীর্ষ নিউজ/
http://www.newsonbd.net/newsdetail/detail/200/327036

তত্ত্বাবধায়ক সরকারের অধীনে আরও ২টি নির্বাচন হওয়ার মত দিয়েছিল আপিল বিভাগ: সুপ্রিমকোর্টের রায়
Two more General Elections under a Care Taker Government: Supreme Court.

03 Aug, 2017

কেয়ারটেকার সরকার ব্যবস্থা বাতিল হওয়ার পরও পরবর্তী আরও দুইটি সংসদ নির্বাচন ওই কেয়ারটেকার সরকারের অধীনেই হতে পারে বলে ওই সময় আপিল বিভাগ যে মত দিয়েছিলেন ষোড়শ সংশোধনী বাতিলের রায়েও তা উল্লেখ করেছেন সুপ্রিমকোর্ট।

ষোড়শ সংশোধনীর রায়ে এক-এগারো সম্পর্কে প্রধান বিচারপতি লিখেছেন, দুই বছরের জরুরি অবস্থার নামে সেনাসমর্থিত তত্ত্বাবধায়ক সরকার আমরা প্রত্যক্ষ করেছি। আর সেটা ঘটেছিল সেই সময়ের ক্ষমতাসীন রাজনৈতিক দলের দূরদর্শিতার অভাব এবং গণতন্ত্রকে প্রাতিষ্ঠানিকীকরণে তাদের অনীহার কারণে।’ ত্রয়োদশ সংশোধনীর বিষয়ে প্রধান বিচারপতি লিখেছেন, ‘সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠের রায়ে আপিল বিভাগ মত দিয়েছিলেন যে, দুটি সংসদীয় নির্বাচন তত্ত্বাবধায়ক সরকারের অধীনে হতে পারে। তবে শর্ত হল, বিলুপ্ত হওয়া ৫৮(ক) অনুচ্ছেদের ৩ ও ৪ দফা অনুযায়ী সর্বশেষ অবসরপ্রাপ্ত প্রধান বিচারপতি কিংবা আপিল বিভাগের সর্বশেষ অবসরপ্রাপ্ত বিচারপতিকে প্রধান উপদেষ্টা পদে নিয়োগ করা যাবে না। প্রধান বিচারপতির নিয়োগ প্রক্রিয়ায় রাজনীতিকীকরণ হতে পারে, এদিকটি মাথায় রেখে আদালত উল্লিখিত নির্দেশনা দিয়েছিলেন।

হাইকোর্টের রায়ের একটি অংশ তুলে ধরে প্রধান বিচারপতি লিখেছেন, আমাদের অভিজ্ঞতা এটা দেখাচ্ছে যে, সংসদের একটি উল্লেখযোগ্য অংশের ফৌজদারি অপরাধের রেকর্ড রয়েছে। তারা দেওয়ানি মামলাগুলোর সঙ্গে সম্পৃক্ত। কিন্তু ষোড়শ সংশোধনীর কারণে সংসদ সদস্যরা বিচারকদের কার্যত বসে (কর্তৃত্ব অর্থে) পরিণত হয়েছেন, যা উচ্চ আদালতের বিচারকদের স্বাধীনভাবে দায়িত্ব পালনে হুমকি সৃষ্টি করেছে। সংবাদপত্রের রিপোর্ট অনুযায়ী সংসদের ৭০ শতাংশ সদস্য ব্যবসায়ী। অ্যাটর্নি জেনারেল মাহবুবে আলম এবং মুরাদ রেজা (অতিরিক্ত অ্যাটর্নি জেনারেল) এ তথ্যের বিষয়ে আপত্তি করেননি। আমরা আমাদের অভিজ্ঞতায় দেখতে পাই, আইন প্রণয়নসংক্রান্ত সংসদীয় বিতর্কে তারা কম আগ্রহী। এর পরিণাম হল, আজকের দিনে সংসদে পাস করা বেশিরভাগ আইন ‘ত্রুটিযুক্ত’। অসম্পূর্ণ এবং ‘নীচুমানের’ আইন প্রণয়নে তাদের দায়িত্ব উত্তমরূপে পালনের চেয়ে সুপ্রিমকোর্টের বিচারকদের অপসারণের প্রক্রিয়ায় সম্পৃক্ত হতে তারা বেশি আগ্রহী হয়ে পড়েছেন। বিচারকদের অসদাচরণ বা অসামর্থ্যরে বিচার করা আইনপ্রণেতাদের কাজ নয়।

শীর্ষ নিউজ
http://www.newsonbd.net/newsdetail/detail/200/327028

 

[Banglar Bir]

Landmark Bangladesh ruling: end of MPs power to sack judges
AFP Updated August 03, 2017
DHAKA: Bangladesh’s Supreme Court has scrapped parliament’s power to sack top judges, in a landmark verdict that lawyers said on Wednesday bolstered the independence of the country’s judiciary.

The country’s top court restored a military rule-era provision which allows only a Supreme Judicial Council, led by the chief justice, to remove judges found to have breached the judicial code of conduct.

The full ruling released on Tuesday was quickly hailed by lawyers as a crucial safeguard for the freedom of the Muslim-majority nation’s secular judiciary. “The judgement declares the 16th amendment of the constitution as null and void. It means the highest court scraps the parliament’s power to remove top judges,” said senior lawyer Syed Ahsanul Karim.

Karim said that because of the “landmark” judgement, the executive “will have no dominant role over the judiciary”.

Karim said if the amendment had been left in place, it would have made top judges “subservient” to the government as they would have been under constant threat of removal.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina brought the constitutional change allowing parliament — controlled by her ruling Awami League party — to remove top judges in September 2014.

In May last year, the High Court declared the amendment illegitimate after a lawyer filed a public interest challenge.

The Supreme Court led by chief justice S.K. Sinha gave a provisional verdict last month ruling against the government.

“The 16th amendment has raised doubts about the independence of the judiciary and the court boldly struck down that amendment,” said Shahdeen Malik, senior lawyer and law professor. “This indicates the assertiveness of the court to preserve and protect its independence,” he said.

The Supreme Court has increased pressure on the government to frame a code of conduct for lower court judges, who experts say are heavily influenced by the government.

Experts say a formal code would curb the government’s power to use lower courts to prosecute opposition leaders and activists on trumped-up charges.

The law ministry has drafted rules, but the top court has rejected them.

Since coming to power in 2009, Hasina’s government has detained and charged tens of thousands of opposition supporters. Khaleda Zia, former prime minister and leader of the opposition, faces at least 30 charges.

Bangladesh was under military rule from 1975 to 1990.

Published in Dawn, August 3rd, 2017
https://www.dawn.com/news/1349252/landmark-bangladesh-ruling-end-of-mps-power-to-sack-judges