& 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

Judiciary Separation

SC asks govt to submit draft rules by Mar 15

Staff Correspondent
Reprimanding the government for resorting to various tactics to delay the separation of the judiciary, the Supreme Court yesterday ordered the government to finalise all relevant draft rules and submit those to the court by March 15.
The full bench of the Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice Syed JR Mudassir Husain issued the order upon a government petition filed in August last year seeking
extension of the deadline by four months for the separation of the judiciary.
"Nearly six months have elapsed after the government sought time for complying with the directives given by the court. The purpose of the government for seeking time has been fulfilled," the court said.
"We do not want to be part of the falsehood and we will not tolerate it since a lie brings other lies," the court said as the government has
SEE PAGE 11 COL 1 FROM PAGE 1
repeatedly been seeking time for submitting documents and implementing the task.
So far the government has sought time on 20 occasions showing various excuses since the Supreme Court issued a 12-point directive to the government in 1999 to implement the separation of the judiciary.
"Take time for the entire year of 2005 or for eternity -- is it a separation or a hide-and-seek?" the court angrily said.
"We want to see the separation of the judiciary in the light of the 12-point directive of the Supreme Court and the constitution. Everyone's responsibility is to carry out their tasks according to the constitution, but in this case it is not being done so," the court added.
"How this order (12-point directive) will be implemented depends on the sincere intentions (of the government)," the court pointed out.
On behalf of the government, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Mohammad Ali stated, "The government has taken the initiative to separate the judiciary from the executive as per the 12-point directive."
"Will the government implement the Supreme Court's directives as per the wisdom of the president or Khalilur Rahman (a senior assistant secretary)? Don't separate the judiciary from the executive as per the theory of Khalilur Rahman," the court said.
Khalilur Rahman is one of nine senior government officials against whom the Appellate Division had issued a contempt rulelatelast year for distorting the judgment of Masdar Hossain versus Bangladesh case popularly known as judiciary separation case.
One of the judges then pointed to an attempt of distorting the 12-point directive by a bureaucrat and reminded again: "The government initiative must follow the Supreme Court directive and the constitution."
The court said the draft rules and other documents related to the separation of the judiciary submitted by the government were all unclear. This prompted the court to order the government to finalise them and re-submit
by March 15.
"The papers submitted by the government give the impression that the government wants to divide the judiciary and not separate it (from the executive)," the court noted.
AAG Mohammad Ali then submitted, "We are taking initiatives to do it fast."
Barrister Amir-Ul Islam, who has been involved in the case for the separation of the judiciary since 1999, was also present at the court yesterday. He said, "Three drafts have been formulated for the separation of the judiciary. As far as we know, none of these reflects the 12-point directive."
He proposed sending the drafts to the Law Commission for review.
The court however rejected his proposal and noted that the Appellate Division itself is the last post to see the proceedings in implementing its directives in this regard.
The nine government officials who faced contempt charge were present at the court yesterday. Advocate TH Khan represented them. However there was no hearing on the contempt charges.