& 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

Remove 2 HC judges

Demand treasury bench MPs during discussion at JS over verdict on Speaker's ruling

Staff Correspondent
In a heated discussion in parliament, a number of ruling alliance lawmakers yesterday accused two High Court judges of violating the constitution and demanded that they be removed for delivering a controversial judgment on the Speaker's June 18 ruling.
The two — Justice Hasan Foez
Siddique and Justice ABM Altaf Hossain — in a verdict recently said the Speaker's ruling had no legal effect and was baseless in the eye of the law.
Speaker Abdul Hamid on June 18 said Justice AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury Manik had violated the constitution by making "derogatory remarks" about the Jatiya Sangsad
and the Speaker.
Participating in yesterday's discussion, Awami League-led ruling coalition MPs called for the Supreme Judicial Council to remove the two judges for breaching the constitution and their oath of office.
They also demanded that parliament amend the constitution to
SEE PAGE 19 COL 5
FROM PAGE 1 revive its authority [in the 1972 constitution], to impeach apex court judges, scrapping the existing system of a Supreme Judicial Council, which was introduced during Ziaur Rahman's rule.
Citing article 78 of the constitution, which deals with the privileges and immunities of parliament and its members, the lawmakers said it does not allow the court to raise any question about parliament proceedings. The two judges in question overstepped their jurisdiction by questioning the Speaker's ruling, they alleged.
Several MPs, including AL's Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim and Sayeedul Haque, Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal's Hasanul Haque Inu and Mayeen Uddin Khan Badal and Jatiya Party's Mujibul Haque said if no action was taken against the controversial judges, the country will face a condition similar to that in Pakistan.
The Pakistan judiciary, with Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury playing an over-zealous role in prosecuting politicians, has seen a prime minister fall and has pushed the temperature up in the case of another.
Ten lawmakers participated in the discussion that lasted over two hours.
Sheikh Selim initiated the discussion. The Speaker then gave the floor to State Minister for Law Quamrul Islam.
Citing the government appeal against the HC verdict, the state minister said the matter was sub judice, and so the MPs should keep it in mind while they speak.
Rejecting Quamrul's argument, the Speaker said the HC verdict could not be sub judice, as parliament did not file any appeal against it. “It's not a case like those filed for murder or property disputes. It is related to the constitution and in no way can it be sub judice," he observed.
He, however, urged the MPs not to use aggressive language.
Relations between the legislature and the judiciary got strained after Justice Manik observed during a June 5 hearing that the Speaker had committed an offence tantamount to sedition by commenting in parliament on an HC order.
The judge also said the Speaker was ignorant of the apex court and the constitution.
Justice Manik's remarks came in response to some observations made by Speaker Abdul Hamid in the House on May 29.
Hamid had told the House that courts were neutral and independent. However, it looked odd when they took quick decisions to resolve their own
problems while people waited for years to get justice.
He had also said that if people were aggrieved at court verdicts, a day would come when they would stand against the courts. "Likewise, if the government becomes autocratic, people will resist it and there are numerous instances of it.”
Hours after Manik's remarks against the Speaker, the ruling alliance MPs blasted the judge and accused him of violating the constitution by making “derogatory remarks” against the Speaker.
Finally, the Speaker on June 18 gave a ruling on the matter.
But the issue got back to the fore when Justice Foez and Justice Altaf came up with their verdict on the Speaker's ruling.
Opening the unscheduled discussion yesterday, Sheikh Selim said a vested quarter had launched the attack on the Speaker. "It's an attack on parliament and democracy. So it cannot be accepted.”
He said the two judges had passed the verdict out of the blue. The matter had already been settled peacefully through the Speaker's ruling.
Senior AL lawmaker Tofail Ahmed said: “In the name of observations, the two judges gave a 38-page verdict, which surprised us. Those who gave the verdict just cannot do so.”
Tofail also questioned whether Justice Altaf was eligible to be a judge of the High Court as “he had not been a practising lawyer of the Supreme Court for 10 years in a row”.
He also blasted Justice Manik for what he described as his various irregularities and dual citizenship. “Justice Manik is also a British citizen. Mr Speaker, you will now find him in Britain,” Tofail said.
He said another judge named Hasan Feroz was also not eligible to be a High Court judge, as he had not fulfilled the requirement of practising in the top court for 10 years.
"Who is Justice Hasan Feroz? He is a son-in-law of Justice Manik's brother,” Tofail said.
"If the Supreme Court does not take any action against Justice Manik, people will lose confidence in the judiciary," he added.
Terming the Speaker's ruling a legislative judgment, former railway minister Suranjit Sengupta said a Supreme Court judgment can be reviewed, but not a legislative judgment.
“If the Speaker's ruling does not exist as per the court's verdict, parliament does not exist either. If parliament does not exist, the judiciary too does not exist and neither do the judges,” he said.
“It is an unwise judgment and the judges did not apply their judicial minds to delivering it,” Suranjit added.
The veteran parliamentarian also condemned the judges who were part of martial law regimes. “There was no martial law where there was no link of Supreme Court judges. Even a sitting chief justice [Justice Abu Sadaat Mohammad Sayem] had become the chief martial law administrator.”
Citing the introduction of the Supreme Judicial Council, he said after the assassination of Bangabandhu, the judiciary in league with the junta usurped the authority to investigate allegations of misconduct against judges.
Workers Party chief Rashed Khan Menon urged the House to draw contempt of parliament proceedings against Justice Foez and Justice Altaf.
“I am requesting the House to send the matter to the Supreme Judicial Council for action against the two judges," he said.
AL MP Sheikh Fazle Noor Taposh opposed discussing the verdict in parliament, saying it was sub judice.
At the end of the discussion, Speaker Abdul Hamid said he would let the House know his decision later. “I hope that everybody will be able to live in their respective position with due dignity and rights,” Hamid