16th amendment illegal: SC

[Banglar Bir]

Fakhrul: Govt should have resigned after SC verdict on 16th amendment

• Tribune Desk
• Published at 06:50 PM August 03, 2017

File photo of Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir
The BNP secretary general once again denounced the government yet again
BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir said the government should have resigned after the Supreme Court’s verdict on the 16th amendment of the Constitution had it been a civil and democratic country.

He made the statement during a press conference after meeting at party’s Naya Paltan office ahead of the 39th founding anniversary of BNP on Thursday.

Mirza Fakhrul claimed that the present government forcibly came to power in 2014.

“The verdict of the Appellate Division is a clear statement that there is no democracy and human rights in the country,” the BNP secretary general added.
http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/politics/2017/08/03/fakhrul-govt-resigned-verdict/

 

[Banglar Bir]

12:00 AM, August 04, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 03:23 AM, August 04, 2017
Focus on selection, removal will be rare
SC tells govt in 16th amendment case verdict, puts emphasis on proper process to find competent judges

Star file photo
Shakhawat Liton

The Supreme Court is critical of the system for appointing higher court judges and stressed the need for a better selection process.

The apex court in the 16th amendment case verdict also observed that removal of judges from office would be a rare event if they were appointed through a rigorous judicial selection process.

According to article 95 (1) of the constitution, the president appoints the apex court judges after consulting with the chief justice.

It may seem that the president is empowered to make the appointment but he himself cannot exercise the power. In reality, the prime minister exercises the power as the president performs all his duties on the advice of the premier, except for the appointment of the PM and the chief justice.

Moreover, no law has been made in the last four decades in line with article 95 (2) (c) determining other criteria and qualifications required for a potential judge of the SC.

In the absence of the law, any Bangladeshi, who has been a lawyer of the SC for at least 10 years or has held an office in the lower judiciary for 10 years, is eligible to be appointed as a judge of the higher judiciary, according to article 95 (2).

"Now the executive [the government] prepares a list of its choice and then sends it to the chief justice as a formality, as if the office of the chief justice is a post box," said Justice Mirza Hussain Haider, one of the seven judges of the Appellate Division, in the 16th amendment case verdict.

"This practice will hardly find competent persons for appointment as a judge of the higher judiciary. Because the executive as well as legislature are generally comprised of political personalities, they cannot chose the right person having the depth of law," he said.

"Rather, person having political affiliation will get preference over the quality lawyers."

The Appellate Division of the SC, led by the chief Justice, on July 3 this year upheld the High Court verdict delivered last year that scrapped the 16th amendment to the constitution.

Through the amendment, the government had cancelled the chief justice led Supreme Judicial Council and had restored the parliament's power to remove SC judges on grounds of misconduct or incapacity.

Justice Haider said he fully concurred with the decision made unanimously in dismissing the appeal with observations. In addition, he expressed his own views about the matter.

He said the term 'consultation with the chief justice' should be made more open so that the consultation was not confined only to the chief justice and the representative of the executive.

But the consultation should be meaningful and practical so that the chief justice could discuss the matter with his colleagues and senior members of the Bar for evaluating strengths and weaknesses of a candidate, he said.

In the past, there were instances of ignoring the opinions of the chief justice.

For example, Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha on December 24 last year said he advised the government to appoint eight additional judges to the HC in August 2016 after a long discussion with the law minister.

"On mutual consent, a recommendation was sent to the government for appointing the judges, but the process was yet to see the light of day in four months,” he had said while speaking at the national judicial conference.

The chief justice, who is the author judge of the 16th amendment case verdict, emphasised on the selection process.

" … through a rigorous judicial selection process and high standards of ethical conduct can help avoid the need for the use of removal mechanism. These are basics to be borne in mind but the executive ignores the criteria in the selection process which is seen all the time," said the chief justice in the verdict.

Expressing his views in the verdict, Justice Haider said in many countries, the practice and procedure of appointing judges have changed with time and that the consultation was no longer limited to the chief justice and the law minister representing the executive.

He said objective criteria, transparency, equal opportunity; integrity; moral value and meritocracy should be taken into consideration before appointing someone as a judge of the higher judiciary.

This should be the method of choosing competent persons who could have appropriate role in protecting the people's right and the constitution, Justice Haider said.

“In our country, since after liberation, the process of appointing judges in the higher judiciary is encircling consultation with the chief justice,” he said, adding, “In old days the chief justice used to consult his brother judges and senior advocates for determining the credibility of any particular advocate/person if he is to be appointed as a judge of the High Court Division.”

"But the said system/process is no more in practice now a days. Rather, it has become completely different," said Justice Haider.

Referring to article 95 (2) (c), he said, “Unless the appointment process is determined by enacting law as per constitutional provision how removal process could be enacted?

“First of all there should be a criteria determined by law for appointment of a person a judge in the higher judiciary and then the question of removal of such judge comes.

"But interestingly for the reasons best known to parliament, they have come forward with removal procedure … ," Justice Haider said.

"It is not understood as to why in spite of the fact that there are existing procedure in the constitution as to qualification of a person to be appointed as a judge in the higher judiciary as well as the removal process, parliament had been so eager to deal with the process of removal of the judges of the Supreme Court before determining the qualifications for appointment pursuant to article 95 (2) (c)?"

He said until parliament enacts the law for appointing judge in the higher judiciary, “the appointment process should be vested upon the said council headed by the chief justice, who can gather information/opinion through other various methods in respect of any candidate and thereby get the final order of appointment/removal by the president of the republic.”

http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/focus-selection-removal-will-be-rare-1443265

 

[Banglar Bir]

16TH AMENDMENT VERDICT
Culture of monopolizing nation’s achievements denounced
M Moneruzzaman | Published: 00:46, Aug 04,2017


The Appellate Division’s full verdict on the 16th Amendment denounced the political culture of laying monopoly ownership over achievements of the nation using first person as the vehicle of expression.
‘We must keep ourselves free from the suicidal ambition and addiction to I’ness,’ says the verdict in the observations.

The full verdict released Tuesday said in the observations that ‘no nation –no country is made of or by one person.’

‘If we want to truly live up to the dream of Sonar Bangla as advocated by our Father of the Nation, we must keep ourselves free from this suicidal ambition and addiction of ‘I’ness. That only one person or one man did all this and etc,’ said the apex court in the related observations.

It said, ‘There is no doubt that the elected representatives of Awami League led the liberation struggle, but people from all walks of life, like labourers, workers, fishermen, housewives, prisoners, educationalists, students, industrialists, intellectuals, Police, Army, Ansars, EPR and supporters of other political parties participated, except few religiously fanatic ideologues and their evil companions.’
The verdict, written by Chief Justice SK Sinha, says, even the Constitution uses the expression
in the Preamble: ‘We the People’.

On July 3, a seven-member bench, chaired by the Chief Justice, in a brief order unanimously rejected a government appeal filed against High Court’s verdict that had struck down the 16th Amendment which empowered Parliament to remove Supreme Court judges as ‘unconstitutional’.

The court says, ‘Now that we are living in a free, independent and sovereign country, however, we are indulging into arrogance and ignorance which threaten the very precious tie and thread of ‘We’.
The court said ‘If we look at the example from USA’s town planning; they recognized the person who worked for their town planning.

‘For abolition of slavery, Mary Todd, wife of 16th President Abraham Lincoln, got recognition.
‘For the establishment of women rights there are other persons who got the recognition and they also remember with great acknowledgment four Army Generals.
The court says, ‘But in our country a disease has infected us and the name of that disease is ‘myopic politicization’.

‘This is a virus and unfortunately this has infected our political culture to such a length that many of our policy makers now are hardly able to see or envision a future meant for a nation, not for a person.
‘Due to this rotting disease, they have personified each and everything.
‘For their narrow and parochial party interest they have established a fake and ‘pseudo democracy’ taking the shameful unfair advantage of our Constitution - a Constitution written with the blood of our martyrs in 1971.’

The court said, ‘We must get rid of this obnoxious ‘our men’ doctrine and suicidal ‘I alone’
attitude. Not party allegiance or money but merit alone should be given the highest priority at all levels of national life and institution building. Person who is making tremendous sacrifice and humongous contribution for development and social progress must be recognized.

‘And in doing so we must only see his or her contribution to this society not to his political colour or inclination.
The court says, ‘If we cannot get ourselves out of this narrow parochialism and cannot overcome the greed of party nepotisms, then this will be the biggest assault to the very foundation of our liberation war- and the rock solid idea of ‘We’ which brought us the long cherished independence and to immortalize this momentum, the word ‘we’ have been put in the very first sentence of our constitution as the very first word of this sagacious document.

The court said that lifelong political struggle of ‘Bangabandhu’ essentially epitomised him as a gladiator for establishing equal rights and equal recognition of all faiths and their followers. This notion of nonsegregation and non-communality worked as momentum for our liberation struggle.

In the preamble, it was clearly spelt out that the high ideals of nationalism, socialism, democracy and secularism shall be the fundamental principles of the Constitution, the verdict said.

But by the Proclamations (Amendment) Order, 1977 the following words were added to the beginning of the constitution’s preamble, namely, “BISMILLAH-AR-RAHMAN-AR-RAHIM’, the court said.
The court said that in 2011, the Parliament brought Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution and made various significant and conspicuous changes. Although the Fifteenth Amendment abolished or substituted most of the provisions that were inserted by the martial law authority, it kept the religious invocation [BISMILLAH-AR-RAHMAN-AR-RAHIM.

‘It was a compromise with the martial law proclamation so far as the religion was concerned,’ court said rejecting attorney general Mahbubey Alam’s argument that the previous system of Chief Justice-led Supreme Judicial Council for removal of SC judges had a martial law concept and against the 1972 constitution.

The court said that through the 8th Amendment another martial law ruler had incorporated fundamental changes in the Constitution by incorporating a new clause as Article 2A of the Constitution.

The court said that This new Article introduced Islam as the State religion, which was not in the 1972 constitution.

Introduction of State religion was also in direct conflict with “secularism,” which was one of the fundamental principles of State policy in the 1972 Constitution.

‘ Despite Parliament revived “secularism” as one of the fundamental
principles of State policy by passing the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 2011, it retained article 2A,’ said the court.

‘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,’ the court said.
http://www.newagebd.net/article/21198/culture-of-monopolizing-nations-achievements-denounced

 

[Banglar Bir]

When Indira Gandhi was unseated by the judiciary
Bajinder Pal Singh, August 1, 2017

The year was 1975. It was mid-June, and the scene had shifted to the city of Allahabad, more famously known as the place of confluence of the Rivers Ganga and Yamuna.

In 1975, however, this city was to emerge as the place of convergence of at least three pillars of Indian polity — politics, judiciary, and the media. It was a rare occasion in India, when a political battle was being fought in the courts, and an increasingly belligerent media was looking towards the legislative arena anticipating yet another opportunity to corner the government.

Raj Narain, a popular figure in the wrestling pits of Benaras (as Varanasi was then called), and who is credited to have brought akharapolitics to the Indian political scene, had challenged the election of Indira Gandhi in the Allahabad High Court. Contemporary records describe Raj Narain as a person with the “Heart of a Lion and the practices of (Mahatma) Gandhi.”

Raj Narain had decided to confront Indira’s brand of politics with his own brand of akhara politics. His first move was in the political ring when he fought an electoral battle against the sitting Prime Minister.

While he was associated with the royal family of Benaras, he decided to move east to launch his political battle in Rae Bareli, which is located in the alluvial Gangetic plains of the Avadh region.

Since India’s independence, the ruling Indian National Congress had never lost an election from Rae Bareli. Indira Gandhi’s husband Feroze Gandhi had won seat in India’s first election in 1951-52, and he had repeated his performance five years later.

It was now Indira’s turn to nurture the constituency, and Raj Narain, despite his larger-than-life persona, was hardly a match. Raj Narain lost at the hustings garnering only a quarter of the total votes polled, while Indira Gandhi outscored him with nearly two-thirds of the votes cast.

Undeterred by the political loss, Raj Narain changed tracks, and decided to shift the bout to the legal arena as he filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court alleging electoral malpractices by the sitting Prime Minister.

Four years had gone by since his loss in 1971, and the case was now heading towards closure. Suddenly, it was not Lucknow, the administrative capital of Uttar Pradesh; but Allahabad, the judicial capital of the province, that would create one of the biggest political upheavals of post-independence India.

On 12 June 1975, Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court declared the Rae Bareli election “null and void” on account of electoral malpractices, and debarred Indira Gandhi from holding elected office for six years. The ruling party was given a time of 20 days to make a replacement for Indira Gandhi.

Significantly, Indira Gandhi was cleared of major charges of electoral malpractices, but she was unseated and debarred on two relatively minor charges — using the services of a government servant for electoral purposes (Yashpal Kapoor was a government servant who had resigned to work for Indira Gandhi, though his resignation had not yet been approved by the President); and erection of a dias by police officials and use of electricity for relaying her election speech.

She was acquitted of more serious charges of bribery, illegal soliciting of votes, and the use of religious symbols for electioneering. The two offences for which Indira Gandhi was unseated were regarded as standard administrative and security practices. The judgement was, and even today, is often criticised in various quarters as “unseating a prime minister for a traffic offense.”

The political fallout of the judgement was phenomenal as it electrified Indian politics. Raj Narain emerged as a national hero to all those opposed to Indira Gandhi. Having failed to dislodge the Congress party from political power for almost three decades, the judgement provided ammunition for an opposition onslaught.

The galvanised opposition led by Jayaprakash Narain called for the ouster of Indira Gandhi, and announced a campaign of civil disobedience. Both Jayaprakash Narain and Raj Narain were socialists, but in their campaign to oust the Congress, they forged an alliance with the right (though the Communist Parties largely stayed away).

Though the initial shot had been fired by the socialist parties, the right wing would quickly move centrestage as the contours of the agitation unfolded themselves. The events that followed would help the rightwing gain a later-day unprecedented ascendancy over Indian politics.

The beleaguered Prime Minister smelled a conspiracy. She quickly approached the Supreme Court, but to a vast majority of the Indian populace, Indira Gandhi had already lost the moral authority to rule. Editorials asked for her resignation, the judiciary had already announced their verdict, and street politics was on the verge of launching the final push.

Contemporary accounts reveal that Indira Gandhi toyed with the idea of resignation, but decided against it. If she was no longer the Prime Minister, and her party was to face the electorate the next year, would the party be able to counter the narrative of a united opposition, was the reasoning offered by her supporters.

Less than a fortnight later, on 25 June 1975, Jayaprakash Narain organized a rally in Delhi, stating that the police should stop accepting orders of an immoral and unethical government. Through his movement, he was seeking a total elimination of corruption, strengthening of democracy, and eyeing what he called “total revolution.”

Indira Gandhi was now convinced of an underlying agenda, and conspiracies, coteries and a possible conflagration made for a heady cocktail. The die had been cast.

Later that day, Indira Gandhi requested a complaint President, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, to sign an order declaring emergency in India.

As civil liberties were quashed, political activists were imprisoned, and censorship was imposed, India entered one of its darkest phases after independence.
India was never the same again.

The writer is a journalist, and he is currently based in Thailand. Twitter: @bajinder
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/08/01/indira-gandhi-unseated-judiciary/

 

[Banglar Bir]

প্রকাশ : ০৫ আগস্ট, ২০১৭ ১১:৫৪ পূর্বাহ্ন

Finance Minister statement tantamount's to Contempt of Court: Rizvi
অর্থমন্ত্রীর বক্তব্য আদালত অবমাননার শামিল: রিজভী

শীর্ষনিউজ, ঢাকা: অর্থমন্ত্রী আবুল মাল আবদুল মুহিতের বক্তব্য আদালত অবমাননার শামিল বলে মন্তব্য করেছে বিএনপির সিনিয়র যুগ্ম মহাসচিব এডভোকেট রুহুল কবির রিজভী আহমেদ।
আজ সকাল ১১টায় নয়াপল্টন দলীয় কার্যালয়ে আয়োজিত এক সংবাদ সম্মেলনে এমন মন্তব্য করেন তিনি।
শীর্ষনিউজ/ইলিয়াস/এসএসআই
16th Amendment whenever dismissed, Parliament will reintroduce the Bill repeatedly.

 

[Banglar Bir]

Muhith obstinate to repeatedly pass 16th amendment
SAM Staff, August 5, 2017

AMA Muhith
Finance minister AMA Muhith said the government will repeatedly pass the controversial 16th amendment of the constitution despite scraping it by the Appellation Division.

“We’ll pass the amendment again in parliament and do it again and again. Let’s see what the judiciary can do,” said the finance minister while responding to queries of journalists during visiting a proposed medical university in Sylhet on Friday.

Muhith’s remarks come after the Appellation Division on Tuesday released the full text of 16th amendment verdict scraping the power of parliament to remove judges of the Supreme Court.

In observations on the verdict, chief justice Surendra Kumar Sinha has been critical of issues such as the absence of democracy, military rule, the role of the election commission (EC), state of governance, corruption and interference in the independence of the judiciary.

Apparently irked, responding to another query, Muhith said, “We recruit the officials of the judiciary. They will be under command of people’s representatives.”

SOURCE PROTHOM ALO
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/08/05/muhith-obstinate-repeatedly-pass-16th-amendme/

 

[Banglar Bir]

2:00 AM, August 06, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 03:19 AM, August 06, 2017
Muhith cops the flak
Staff Correspondent

Two former law ministers of the previous Awami League and BNP governments yesterday criticised Finance Minister AMA Muhith's for his comment that parliament would pass the 16th constitutional amendment time and again.

Ex-minister Shafique Ahmed said Muhith might have made the comment out of emotion. Terming the remark horrifying, another former minister Moudud Ahmed called upon the government to avoid any conflict with the judiciary.

Talking to The Daily Star yesterday, former AL ministers Shafique and Abdul Matin Khasru said the Supreme Court's verdict on the constitutional amendment was binding on the government under article 112 of the constitution.

However, Law Minister Anisul Huq has refrained from making any comment on the verdict since the apex court released the full text of the judgment on Tuesday.

The SC scrapped the constitutional amendment that restored parliament's power to remove apex court judges on grounds of misconduct or incapacity.

The Jatiya Sangshad had passed the amendment in September 2014. It abolished the decades-old Supreme Judicial Council, led by the chief justice.

Expressing serious resentment over the verdict, Muhith on Friday said they would amend the charter again to re-empower parliament to remove SC judges.

“Yes, we'll pass the constitutional [16th] amendment in parliament again and we'll do it continuously. Let's see how far the judiciary goes. Because I think the judiciary's position is untenable. Will they interfere with people's representatives? We appoint them as judges,” he told reporters after attending a programme in Sylhet.

Khasru, who had been the law minister from 1996-2001, said it was Muhith's “personal remark”.

He said they were aggrieved and hurt by some remarks made by the apex court.

“The political remarks made by the chief justice in the 16th amendment verdict are not at all relevant to the subject matter of the case. We are injured, hurt and aggrieved.”

“He is not only the chief justice of the Supreme Court, but also of entire Bangladesh. He is an institution. We didn't except such an observation from him,” said Khasru, also an AL presidium member and chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Law Ministry.

About passing of the 16th constitutional amendment again, Shafique said, “Practically it is not possible. He [Muhith] might have made the comment having been driven by emotion. It's not a proper remark.”

Shafique, who served as law minister from 2009-2014, said the only option before the government now was to file a petition with the Appellate Division seeking review of the verdict.

If the government can prove any error in the judgment, the apex court will correct it, he added. “Otherwise, the government would have no other option but to implement the verdict.”

BNP leader Moudud Ahmed said, “A very senior cabinet member has said they will pass the 16th amendment time and again. This is just horrifying.”

“The remark of a senior minister has made it clear that the Awami League government doesn't believe in the independence of the judiciary. It also doesn't believe in the rule of law,” he told a discussion at the Jatiya Press Club.

He called upon the government not to enter into a confrontation with the judiciary. “I urge the government to avoid conflicts with the judiciary. It would be a losing contest for them.”

Speaking at another programme at the same venue, AL General Secretary Obaidul Quader said some quarters were very happy with the SC verdict.

“Some quarters are very happy with the scrapping of the 16th constitutional amendment. They feel happy in this way. They are seeing a ray of hope. This ray of hope will fade out soon.”

Contacted, AL Law Affairs Secretary SM Rezaul Karim said he would not make any comment as his party was yet to decide its stance on the verdict.

Meanwhile, Manzill Murshid, counsel for nine lawyers who had filed the writ petition in November 2014 challenging the 16th amendment, yesterday said the finance minister made the remark as he has “no idea about the constitution”.

“His remark is pointless and against the constitution and court. The government won't be able to make any new law in this regard. There is nothing in this comment to lay emphasis on,” he told reporters at a Sylhet court.

Asked if the court's attention would be drawn to Muhith's alleged contemptuous remark, he said no contempt petition would be filed against him considering his age.

Addressing a press conference at the party's Nayapaltan central office, BNP Senior Joint Secretary General Rizvi Ahmed said the finance minister was making “fatuous remarks out of fear that the government would lose power”.

http://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/muhith-cops-the-flak-1444168

 

[Banglar Bir]

Muhith’s remarks on 16th constitutional amendment verdict horrifying, says BNP’s Moudud
SAM Staff, August 6, 2017

A senior BNP leader has criticised Finance Minister AMA Muhith’s comments on the top court’s decision that declared the 16th constitutional amendment illegal.

“A very senior cabinet member has said they will pass the 16th amendment again and again. This is horrifying,” said BNP leader Moudud Ahmed.

It’s clear from the remarks that the Awami League government does not believe in the independence of the judiciary, Ahmed said at a discussion on Saturday.

Ahmed, who sits on the BNP’s policymaking National Standing Committee, advised the ruling party to steer clear of a confrontation with the judiciary.

“I would ask the government to avoid a conflict with the judiciary. It’s a losing contest for them.”

The Supreme Court’s verdict reflected the will of the people, the BNP leader said. “The verdict is not only historic, but it also fulfils the desires of people.”

He came down hard on the administration over the Anti-Corruption Commission pleading to court to scrap bail for BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia, who is now in the UK for treatment.

“She will return from her trip abroad after her treatment,” said Moudud.

Moudud deplored “remarks” from different people on her foreign trip and said: “A notice has also been filed with the court asking for the cause of her absence. But the court is well aware of the situation.”

SOURCE BDNEWS24.COM
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/0...mendment-verdict-horrifying-says-bnps-moudud/

 

[Banglar Bir]

 

[Banglar Bir]

Court welcomes criticism over verdict on 16th amendment: CJ
SAM Staff, August 11, 2017

Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha has turned down a call for a contempt rule against the Law Commission chief for his remarks on the verdict that declared the 16th constitutional amendment illegal.

The top court welcomes ‘constructive criticism’ and will not fall into the ‘trap’ of criticism either by the ruling party or the opposition, Justice Sinha said on Thursday.

His remarks came after pro-BNP lawyers brought the court’s attention to a media briefing by Justice ABM Khairul Haque, chief of the Law Commission, on Wednesday.

Haque said the verdict that took away parliament’s powers to sack top judges appears to be “preconceived.”

“The constitution says this is the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. After this verdict, it seems our country is going to be the Judges’ Republic of Bangladesh,” said Haque, who served as the chief justice from 2010 to 2011.

Some of Chief Justice Sinha’s comments on members of parliament were “irrelevant” and the terms he used were “immature”, according to his former colleague at the top court.

Presenting media reports of the press conference, Supreme Court Bar Association President Zainul Abedin told the Appellate Division on Thursday that it was not appropriate for Justice Haque to make such remarks as he heads the Law Commission.

“We are discussing it today only to uphold the judiciary’s stature,” said Abedin, a pro-BNP lawyer.

Chief Justice Sinha said, “Anyone can criticise a verdict, if it’s constructive. We welcome constructive criticism or else it will cause harm to the judiciary.”

Senior lawyer and pro-Awami League leader SM Rezaul Karim, who was present in court during Abedin’s rule request, said the bar association had not adopted a resolution on the Law Commission chief’s comments.

Supreme Court Bar Association General Secretary Mahbub Uddin Khokon, a pro-BNP lawyer, described Justice Haque’s comments as ‘clearly offensive to court’.

“I would request you all to restrain yourselves,” the chief justice said in response to Khokon’s request for a rule.

“Neither the government nor the opposition will be able to lure us into a trap. We are careful. The decision was made after the deliberations of seven judges. Do not try to play politics with our decision.”

BNP Standing Committee member and former Law Minister Moudud Ahmed has also called the Law Commission chairman’s remarks ‘offensive’.

The chief justice said there could be constructive criticism of the decision and that history would ultimately decide.

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution had restored parliament’s powers to impeach higher court justices. Last year, the High Court declared the amendment ‘illegal’ and the decision was upheld on Jul 3 by the Appellate Division. The full verdict was finally released by the Supreme Court on Aug 1.

In the 799-page text, Chief Justice Sinha focused on politics, military rule, the Election Commission, corruption, governance and the independence of the judiciary.

Law Minister Anisul Huq spoke on the court’s decision at a press conference on Thursday.

SOURCE BDNEWS24.COM
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/0...constitutional-amendment-chief-justice-sinha/

 

[idune]

Now Hasina and ruling Awami league labeling Chief Justice as "aniti independent" of Bangladesh and "rajakar". Its worth mentioning that current chief justice is from hindu religion. This is to show how awami league and indians use ""rajakar" label on everyone who stands on their way of autocracy and fascism.

 

[Banglar Bir]

AL lawmakers hint at possibility of reinstating parliament’s power

• Ashif Islam ShaonFazlur Rahman Raju
• Published at 09:12 AM August 12, 2017

Rear view of the Bangladesh Supreme Court Building. Dhaka, Bangladesh.Syed Zakir Hossain/Dhaka Tribune
On Thursday, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina advised the party leaders not to be anxious over the verdict during a meeting of the senior party leaders at Ganabhaban
The Awami League could attempt at passing another law to give parliament back the power to impeach higher court judges, which it lost when the Supreme Court scrapped the 16th Amendment to the constitution last month.

On condition of anonymity, several lawmakers and central leaders of the ruling party told the Dhaka Tribune that since the party had more than two-thirds majority in parliament, it would be easy to pass the law again when they wanted.

It is only a matter of time and solely depends on the willingness of the party chief, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, they added.

“We do not want any political observation from the country’s apex court, but the court has passed the verdict on 16th Amendment based on political views,” said Khalid Mahmud Chowdhury, organising secretary of the Awami League.

Asked if the ruling party would amend the constitution to reinstate the law, the Dinajpur 2 lawmaker told the Dhaka Tribune: “We will discuss this issue in the upcoming session of parliament.”

During a press conference on Thursday, Law Minister Anisul Huq, too, hinted at bringing further amendment to the constitution if the public opinion demanded it.

However, Golam Mowla Nakshbandi, adviser to the party’s Central Working Committee, said it was not the right time to comment on such possibilities.

“It is not the time to say whether we will reinstate the law. Only Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and party General Secretary Obaidul Quader can say what to do going forward. I, personally, want a solution to this issue,” he added.

He said there was a misunderstanding between the Chief Justice’s office and the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs which created this issue. “I hope it will be resolved soon.”

Meanwhile, Awami League Presidium member Pijush Kanti Bhattacharya said the party was not thinking about passing another law just yet.

“At the moment, we are scrutinising the [Appellate Division] verdict on the 16th Amendment,” he told the Dhaka Tribune.

Asked if the party might attempt to reinstate parliament’s power to impeach the higher court judges should it win the upcoming 11th parliamentary election, he refused to comment.

On Thursday, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina advised the party leaders not to be anxious over the verdict during a meeting of the senior party leaders at Ganabhaban.

She said the party would decide the next course of action after deliberating on the verdict, and also asked the party lawyers to find a way to resolve this situation.

Earlier during a Cabinet meeting on Monday, the prime minister directed the Cabinet members to build public opinion against the objectionable and irrelevant comments made by the Supreme Court in the verdict when senior ministers criticised the judgement.

The 16th Amendment, which was passed at parliament in September 2014, put parliament in charge of impeaching the higher court judges on proven allegations of incapability or misconduct, abolishing the Supreme Judicial Council, the Supreme Court’s own mechanism led by the Chief Justice for the impeachment.

On July 3 this year, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court scrapped the amendment and reinstated the provision of Supreme Judicial Council.

In the full text of the verdict, the apex court made observations on different issues including democracy, the Election Commission, good governance, corruption, politics, martial law and independence of the judiciary.

These observations have led to a strong debate among the government, political parties and judicial experts. In the last few days, several lawmakers, ministers and the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina have vehemently criticised some of the observations made in the verdict.

The government officially gave its reaction to the Supreme Court verdict on Thursday, 10 days after the full text of the judgement was published.

At a press conference in Dhaka, Law Minister Anisul Huq announced that the grounds on which the apex court scrapped the amendment were unacceptable to the government.

He said the Chief Justice made derogatory comments on parliament and undermined it.

The law minister informed the press that the government had decided to make a move to get the objectionable and irrelevant statements made by the Chief Justice in the judgement expunged.

“But the government has yet to decide whether it will seek review. We are still examining all the issues mentioned in the judgement,” he said, adding that despite disagreeing with the verdict, the government respects it.

Criticising the reinstatement of Supreme Judicial Council, the law minister said the system was frail and not transparent, and the concept was a brainchild of military dictators.

If people give them mandate or show their interest in favour of it, the government may bring further amendment to the constitution, he said when asked what the government was planning to do next.

One day before the government gave its formal reaction, Law Commission Chairman Justice ABM Khairul Haque strongly criticised the Supreme Court’s verdict at a press conference he arranged on Wednesday.

Terming the verdict misconceived, irrelevant and immature, the former Chief Justice said the Supreme Court had made some observations overlooking the main issue of the case.

Meanwhile, main opposition party the BNP came down heavily on the government for criticising the Supreme Court’s verdict scrapping the 16th Amendment.

During a press conference in Dhaka on Thursday, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir alleged that the government had taken the judiciary as its opponent following the release of the full verdict.

He criticised senior Awami League leaders for opposing the verdict, saying: “There was a discussion at the Cabinet meeting after the release of the full verdict. I wonder if the way the ministers spoke about the verdict was tantamount to contempt of court.”

He termed the verdict historic and said it highlighted the current political scenario of the country.

Fakhrul further criticised the law minister’s remarks and said it was his duty to implement the verdict, and he was deviating from that duty for a political reason.

The BNP also heavily criticised Justice Khairul Haque for his comments on the verdict, calling his comments not only indecent, but also tantamount to contempt of court.

As an official paid by the public exchequer, holding such a press conference is a complete violation of the government’s code of conduct, Fakhrul commented.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, the man who is under spotlight along with his colleagues for the verdict, on Thursday urged everyone not to play any political game over the judgement.

He said the apex court welcomed constructive criticisms, but its judges would not fall into any trap laid by the government or the opposition.

“We are cautious. We, the seven judges, delivered the verdict after thinking a lot. Do not do politics over judgements,” he said after some pro-BNP lawyers placed comments made by the Law Commission chairman published in a newspaper before the court.

The Chief Justice said anybody can criticise the apex court verdict, and in the end, history would be the best judge.

Meanwhile, during a recent roundtable discussion in Dhaka, prominent jurist Shahdeen Malik said all of the apex court judges who delivered the verdict were appointed when the Awami League was in power.

“All of them agreed on scrapping the amendment. It proves that the judiciary still enjoys independence,” he said.

http://www.dhakatribune.com/banglad...-possibility-reinstating-parliaments-power-3/

But why is the 16th amendment becoming a political issue?
Afsan Chowdhury, August 12, 2017

Chief Justice S.K. Sinha speaking at the inauguration ceremony of online application registration system of Bangladesh Judicial Service Commission
The 16th amendment debate is now seriously intense at several levels. It is a conflict between the Judiciary and the Legislature as its powers to remove Judges have been taken away. MPs have felt very insulted and said so. But the observations made in the verdict by Chief Justice Sinha and his peers are being read as “political” and the reactions are even more strong. The present legislature consists entirely of ruling party Awami League MPs so it has become a party issue too with the main Opposition BNP (out of parliament) seeing it as a positive opportunity coming before the 2018 elections. “Now BNP will go on the offensive”, we were told. Apparently, the AL also thinks that the political impact is higher than the legislative one.

Some of the main Observations of the appeal cancellation judgment are as following: a. The power to remove the judges by the parliament in the original constitution was an “accident” and in 60% of the Commonwealth countries, this powers lies with Tribunals. To that end, the Supreme Judicial Council has been revived.

1. That article 70 of the constitution doesn’t allow MPs to vote independently in opposition to the party whip making the government decision to remove judges binding on all party MPs. Hence decisions will not be freely decided.
2. That people feel the power of the legislature to remove judges reduce the independence of the Supreme Court. There are several other points, some on the state of the parliament which are deemed derogatory. One observation stating that “nation building’ is a collective effort is seen by many AL leaders as challenging the status of Sheikh Mujib as the “Father of the Nation” which is confirmed by the 15th amendment.

The manifest happiness of BNP leaders at the cancellation of the 16th amendment has now made many AL leaders more convinced that the political situation may turn uncertain before elections happens in 2018.

Politics of amendments
Constitutional amendments are always about politics in Bangladesh. The 4th amendment made one-party rule kosher, the 5th ended it, The 7th made martial law take over halal, the 12thmade the Caretaker Government during elections which was introduced in 1991, CT government formal under which elections were held from 1990 to 2008 legal, the 15thamendment ended CT system in the face of opposition by the BNP who later boycotted the elections of 2014.

Political recovery is still on but it shows that given the chaotic, topsy-turvy nature of Bangladesh politics, amendments are both products as well as triggers of political change. But what exactly is that if at all, no one is sure of except that something maybe afoot. The PM’s statement to be “beware of conspiracies” has added to the mood.

Why has the 16th become such a crisis?
The 16th amendment came at a time of heightening conflict between the Supreme Court and the ruling Government which has become nearly confrontational now. The Chief Justice S.K. Sinha has not shied away from such situations which has made the SC Appellate Division part of the public space. He has criticized various legal actions of the Government and he took the unusual step of holding two cabinet ministers in contempt for uttering remarks against the CJ and his court and punished them, a very great rarity.

When the Islamists started a movement demanding the removal of a goddess of Justice statue from the Supreme Court, Justice Sinha stood his ground and simply moved it to a less visible part of the premises. The movement too faded away. Justice Sinha has a positive public image as a person of will and integrity.

But the 16th amendment cancellation drama is big fish. The verdict is criticized by the AL and the uproar continues heightened by the publishing of the observations. Meanwhile, the immediate past Chief Justice Khairul Haque who now heads the Law Commission who delivered the 15th amendment verdict has trashed the Sinha verdict calling it “immature” and an attempt to establish the supremacy of the Judiciary. The Law Minister Anisul Haque, considered a moderate, has said that the Government will seek expunging of certain parts of the judgment through a review.

But Dhaka’s rumour factory is working overtime asking if factors beyond legality and even national boundaries are involved in influencing the course of events or not. Since few understand what the implication of the 16th amendment was and it’s cancellation means, some are puzzled by the whole episode and the ruckus following an amendment which has impact only on very few lives. Some feel that uncertain times are ahead given that the 2018 elections aren’t far away.

Foreign affairs and local amendments?
It’s said that AL’s interest in a quality election was in part pushed by the two great regional powers, India and China. Both have made substantial investments and not just monetary in the country and think that a bad election could lead to political problems which is bad investment news. Since both the countries are locked in a battle of nerve, this has become a high stakes game though Bangladesh is not a party.

India’s anxiety over China’s overtures to Bangladesh is no secret as China not only has deeper pockets and as sources confirm are willing to put in more billions if Bangladesh can absorb them. Military hardware supply is another area where both are competing of sorts because the stakes have gone beyond sales now what with the Doklam standoff.

But public opinion is not very pro-Indian and India’s ill advised Rampal power plant project investment which has become a threat to Sundarbans according to environmental activists has become a bigger problem for India’s image. So, India is concerned about what is in store, both in the short and long term.

But India is closely linked to Bangladesh and its people through physical proximity and many other ties. It has a large lobby in the business and the political world. China has to depend solely on its billions and as a reliable supplier of military hardware to make its presence felt.

The PM of Bangladesh wants more arm spreading space and that is why she wants to balance the scenery by not tilting towards any single camp. In a way that was the scene before China’s arrival in a big way. India wants China out and China wants more proximity and influence. It’s not Bangladesh that bothers them but each other. How that game is being played out is unclear.

In a political culture that is unstructured and subject to sudden mood swings, the players need to pay attention to every shot. Life is simpler for the BNP, wanting to go to power only, but for the AL, now holding the reins, the wild shots may come from anywhere causing power anxiety.

In this uncertain mood all around, the Government may be worrying if this very robust and adversarial position taken by the Supreme Court doesn’t become another factor in the increasingly crowded field of political contest and impact.

http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/08/12/16th-amendment-becoming-political-issue/

 

[Banglar Bir]

06:04 PM, August 12, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 06:22 PM, August 12, 2017
BNP conspiring over 16th amendment verdict: Quader

Awami League General Secretary Obaidul Quader on August 12, 2017, says that a group of vested quarter is hatching conspiracy centering verdict over the 16th constitutional amendment to halt the country’s peace and progress. Star file photo
Star Online Report

Awami League General Secretary Obaidul Quader today said that a group of vested quarter is hatching conspiracy centering verdict over the 16th constitutional amendment to halt the country’s peace and progress.

He slammed BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, its Standing Committee Member Moudud Ahmed as they have become over enthusiastic “as if the court will put them in the state power”.

“They (BNP) engaged in hatching a new conspiracy as part of their politics of vengeance to halt the country’s development and progress. We will not allow them to meet their dream,” said Quader, also road transport and bridges minister.

He was addressing a rally marking the national mourning day on August 15 jointly organised by Dhaka north and south unit of Bangladesh Chhatra League at the Central Shaheed Minar in Dhaka this noon.

Quader sharply criticised Moudud Ahmed as he earlier termed the judiciary as bias when he lost his Gulshan house in legal battle.
“But soon after the court verdict over the 16th amendment, this very man has claimed that the judiciary is independent.”

After being failed in waging a successful movement, BNP did not take part in the last general election fearing to face a serious debacle, Quader said adding that the party is now searching new issue to topple the ruling Awami League.

He called upon the leaders and activists of the party’s student front to find out the conspirators so that they cannot knit the net of the conspiracy.

Quader also rejected BNP’s allegation that Awami League is plotting to cling on to power through backdoor and said his party does not believe in such attempt like Ziaur Rahman, who captured power at gunpoint and then formed BNP.

http://www.thedailystar.net/politic...ment-verdict-bangladesh-supreme-court-1447546

03:29 PM, August 12, 2017 / LAST MODIFIED: 03:44 PM, August 12, 2017
16th amendment: SC has given a ‘historic verdict’, says Fakhrul
Star Online Report

As the protector of the constitution, the Supreme Court has given a “historic verdict” on the 16th amendment case and by disregarding it, the government has lost its moral legality to stay in the office, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir today said.

The BNP leader made the observations during a doa mahfil arranged to pray for the wellbeing of BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia at the party central office at Nayapaltan of the capital. Khaleda Zia underwent a successful eye surgery at a hospital in London on August 8.

“When the state is at stake, at that time the Supreme Court has delivered the verdict from its sense of duty,” Fakhrul said.

Countering the statement of Obaidul Quader, ruling Awami League general secretary and also minister for Road Transport and Bridges, that BNP is doing politics with the 16th amendment verdict, Fakhrul said “Before giving lessons to BNP over morality, you should resign for the current state of the roads and highways.”
http://www.thedailystar.net/politic...ic-verdict-says-fakhrul-islam-alamgir-1447519

 

[idune]

Awami league appointed the chief justice and now even calling him not a hindu because he opposed awami ploy of total control of judicil system of Bangladesh. True character of awami league and its cheer leaders.

@Philia how is eid er porer andolon?

সুরেন্দ্র কুমার সিনহা হিন্দু নন ঃ অপু উকিল

12 Aug, 2017

প্রধান বিচারপতি সুরেন্দ্র কুমার সিনহার অপসারণ চাইলেন আওয়ামী লীগের সহযোগী সংগঠন যুব মহিলা সাধারণ সম্পাদক অপু উকিল। তিনি বলেন, সুরেন্দ্র কুমার সিনহা হিন্দু নন। আমরা জানতে পারছি স্বাধীনতার সময় তিনি শান্তি কমিটিতে ছিলেন। এ শান্তি কমিটির প্রধান লক্ষ্য ও উদ্দেশ্য ছিলো হিন্দু নিধন। তাই একজন হিন্দু কিভাবে শান্তি কমিটিতে যোগ দেন? তিনি ষড়যন্ত্র করছেন। বিএনপি সুরে কথা বলছেন। আমরা তার অপসারণ চাই।

http://www.newsofbd.net/newsdetail/detail/200/328877

 

[Banglar Bir]

Chief justice showed audacity: LGRD minister
SAM Staff, August 12, 2017

Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha had the temerity to belittle Bangabandhu in his observation in the verdict declaring the 16th constitutional amendment illegal, LGRD Minister Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain has said.

“The chief justice widely added unconstitutional and unethical remarks to the verdict,” the minister said at a programme in Madaripur’s Shibchar on Friday.

“He even showed the audacity of undermining the Father of the Nation, the Greatest Bengali of All Time, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. I condemn this,” he added.

The ruling Awami League, which brought the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 2014 to restore parliament’s power to impeach Supreme Court judges, has reacted sharply to the appeals verdict cancelling the amendment.

Law Minister Anisul Huq came up with the government’s formal reaction to the verdict on Thursday, 10 days after the publication of the full 799-page judgment.

Chief Justice Sinha’s observations in the verdict have sparked a raging debate.

Ministers are slating Justice Sinha for his observation that ‘the credit for independence does not go to a single person’.

Law Minister Huq said the government will move for having ‘unacceptable and offensive’ statements in the verdict deleted.

On Friday, LGRD Minister Mosharraf also said, “With due respect, we request a review of the undesirable matters in the verdict.”

He added that “lack of confidence in the judiciary can cause catastrophe to a country”.

SOURCE BDNEWS24.COM
http://southasianmonitor.com/2017/08/12/chief-justice-showed-audacity-lgrd-minister/