Top lawyers reacting to the home minister's statements on judiciary said yesterday that the minister abused his parliamentary privileges through his "uncalled for and "unwarranted" remarks which could impact the judicial process in future.

In his statements made in parliament Monday, Home Minister Mohammad Nasim accused the higher courts of patronising the terrorists "by granting them bails indiscriminately".

The lawyers' reaction came in response to The Daily Star queries. Barrister Ishtiaque Ahmed, a former attorney general, described the remark as uncalled for. The Speaker should have taken up the matter. No one should abuse the Rules of Procedure of parliament. The Rules of Procedure are not permissible in the case of the judges." he opined.

The eminent jurist said that Bangladesh Constitution ensures the independence of the judiciary. The Rules of Procedure clearly provide for responsible statement by MPs or ministers. They have a privilege but they should not abuse it. The Speaker should have ensured it.” he observed.

“If anyone feels aggrieved he can an appeal to the higher courts. Lawyers on both sides argue their cases and the judges give verdict after hearing both sides. They may be right or wrong but there is a superior court to review it." the barrister said.

"It is not desirable for anyone — the judiciary, the gov-, eminent and all quarters -- to drag the judiciary into such a fray.” he said.

Barrister Shafique Ahmed, President of Supreme Court Bar Association, also called the statements unwarranted. "The Supreme Court is independent and has Judicial discretion to grant or reject bail to anyone. So any comment on that is unwarranted."

Dr M. Zahir said the home minister must have made such comments "without giving it much thought".

“If he did think what he was

talking about, he would not have said so." said Barrister Zahir.

"I think his statement casts an aspersion on the judiciary A citizen has a right to obtain bail from the court. For that the judge cannot be blamed.

"When the miscreants obtain bail the judges are blamed for it. But what about the government attorneys? What are they doing to prevent it for which they are appointed?

"I am apprehending that such comment would make the judges more defensive as a consequence of which they may not grant bail in genuine cases." Dr Zahir observed.

The home minister may escape the contempt proceedings by dint of his parliamentary immunity, but he had his statements reached out to the entire nation." he added.

Barrister Nazmul Huda. MP and a former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association. described the home minister’s comment as a "conscious attempt to malign the judiciary".

“It is very much unprecedented by a government which is always speaking about rule of law. democracy and independence of judiciary to behave in a way they are behaving.

To me, it appears to be a deliberate attempt on the part of the government to destroy a democratic institution which protects the fundamental right of the people. The statement is extremely anti-people, antidemocracy. anti- rule of law and anti-independence of judiciary." he said.