& 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

SEPARATION OF JUDICIARY

SC rejects govt’s 21st time-extension plea

Says there must be an end to it; hearing of contempt charges Feb 1

STAFF CORRESPONDENT
The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday rejected the government's 21st appeal to extend the deadline for separation of the judiciary, expressing its disgust at the 'government's doing nothing' to this end in the last six months.
A six-member full bench of the SC, headed by Chief Justice Syed JR Mudassir Husain, set February 1, 2006 as the date for hearing on two cases regarding separation of the judiciary.
Of the two cases, one deals with
contempt charges against nine bureaucrats while the other one deals with a petition for bringing contempt proceedings against the government for not separating the judiciary as per the SC verdict.
When The Daily Star asked Attorney General (AG) AJ Mohammad Ali about the implications of the court's rejection, he said, “The prayer for time has been rejected. We will appear before the court on February 1.”
Ali declined to comment also on
whether setting of February 1 as the next hearing date is equivalent to an extension of deadline.
The last extension, which was of six months, to implement the SC's 1999 orders on separation of the judiciary expired on October 17. The attorney general yesterday morning filed an application on behalf of the government, seeking a four-month period of time to implement the SC directives on separation of the judiciary.
Barrister Amir-Ul Islam, a party to the 1999 Masdar Hossain case that led the SC to issue the 12-point directive on separation of the judiciary, was also present at the court. Representing nine bureaucrats facing contempt charges for distorting the interpretations of the SC directives, former judge TH Khan was also present there.
The court asked the AG a number of specific questions regarding the progress in the process of separating the judiciary.
The AG told the court, "As per the provisions of the constitution, to separate the judiciary from the executive is a state policy. The government has to consider many things to implement the state policy. It [government] needs more time to transfer and accommodate the magistracy."
The court responded, “we cannot go back to 1999… There must be an end to it. Is there any significant development after the last six months' time extension, can you show us? We found that nothing has been done during this period.”
The court asked the AG how long the government's practice of seeking time extension would continue. The AG could not give a specific answer to the question.
Arguing in favour of separation of the judiciary, Barrister Amir-Ul Islam told the court that the government is not making any of the necessary rules (for separation of the judiciary) in line with the 12-point directive. What they are formulating now will deprive the SC of having control over the subordinate courts in future, he added.
He noted that the CrPC (Criminal
Procedure Code) has not been amended as directed.
A judicial service commission has been formed, but that too was not done in the light of the verdict. The seven-member judicial service commission is supposed to be fully represented by members from the judiciary, majority coming from the SC. But in reality the government had only two from the judiciary. As a result, the executive wing continues to hold sway over the judiciary, Barrister Amir pointed out, adding, “This is contemptuous.”
Amir observed that the government wants to push back the SC directives and such intent amounts to contempt of court.
While talking to The Daily Star, B arrister Amir noted, “ Back in February, the government had sent two draft rules to the prime minister's office (PMO). But those rules were not drafted as per the Supreme Court's directive. This is a violation of the verdict.”
“Nearly a year ago, I filed a contempt petition with the Supreme Court against the government. At that time, the court said that they will hear the matter at an appropriate time. Today I have filed some other complaints in addition to that petition. The court has set February 1 as the first date for hearing on the petition,” he added.
The nine bureaucrats faced with contempt charge since November last were also present at the court. The court yesterday ordered them to appear before it on February 1.