& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Not too easy to address overnight, says Moudud

In-built complications blamed for delay in separation of judiciary, formation of HR and anti-corruption bodies

ZAYADUL AHSAN
Separation of the judiciary, formation of human rights and anticorruption commissions and installation of an ombudsman are not in sight, Law Minister Moudud Ahmed said.
In-built complications are holding back their implementation, he said in an interview with The Daily Star.
"These are not so simple that could be actualised overnight," the minister said, adding: "I have been hearing discussions about these issues since the 1950s."
The separation of the judiciary, being handled by the Supreme Court, will take more than six years, he said.
Moudud, who held several ministerial and state positions under different governments since the late 1970s, focused on a raft of topical issues in the interview.
Illustrating reasons for the delay in separation of the judiciary, he said replacement of the 600 administrative staff carrying out judicial responsibilities presented the key area of problem.
The phasing out of the administrative officers from the judicial service would take at least six to Moudud Ahmed
seven years, he said, adding the West Bengal state of India took 15 years to complete the process.
Is not six years a long time for the replacement of 600 officers?
"What I've said is the shortest possible time," he said.
There is also a shortage of about 210 judicial officers which is presenting a drag on our efforts to provide the courts with judges, he added.
Moudud, however, stressed that the government would work flat
out to deliver its pledge. "There is no scope to renege on the promise," he said.
Why the government has appealed against a High Court directive not to detain people arrested on suspicion, a decision hailed by the commonman?
"We don't oppose the essence of the directive, we are challenging part of the court order --whether it can ask the government to bring amendment to a law within six months."
"Our question is whether a court can give a deadline to parliament to complete a legislation, the prime task of parliament, or whether it amounts to dictating terms to the legislative body. Many may argue that it may amount to an infringement on the sovereignty of parliament."
He, however, revealed that long before the court directive the government took an initiative to alter Sections 54 and 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code to minimise the abuse of the law. The home ministry is now scanning a draft law prepared on the basis of recommendations by the Law Commission.
Asked whether the draft law will
SEE PAGE 11 COL 7 FROM PAGE 1
also take a long course, he said: "It's the matter of the home ministry."
Why did the government ignore the recommendations of the chief justice for appointment and confirmation of the service of judges?
"We are still following the convention of upholding the honourable chief justice's (CJ's) recommendations."
On the SC Bar Association's allegation that the government ignored the recommendations on various occasions, an agitated Moudud said: "What do they know?"
"Over the last 18 months, we consulted with the CJ on confirmation or appointment of additional judges."
On the allegation of political consideration in the appointments, Moudud said no judge was selected on political grounds.
"We were able to appoint some brilliant advocates as judges as we were free from all sorts of bias," he said.
Taking a question on deterioration of law and order, he said no country in the world was free from the concern.
The government is making relentless efforts to tackle the situation by modernising the police force, he said.
"We have to rely on police," Moudud said, adding the deployment of joint forces including the armed forces improved the situation remarkably.
Fending off the criticism of the Joint Forces Indemnity Act, he said the act indemnified the members of the armed forces from prosecution in the civil courts, but they were not given exemption from the military courts.
"No country tries members of its armed forces in civil courts for any offence they commit when performing duties in any operation," he said.
"This is exactly what we have done. When I explained the issue at the development forum meeting, many ambassadors expressed their satisfaction openly," he added.