FROM PAGE 1

Contacted, Attorney General Md Ruhul Quddus Kazal told The Daily Star that his office will move an appeal challenging the High Court verdict on behalf of the state before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.

He said the High Court, in its verdict, issued a certificate allowing an appeal under Article 103(2)(a) of the constitution, as the case raises a substantial question of constitutional interpretation.

The attorney general also said the High Court verdict will not be effective until the Appellate Division disposes of the planned appeal.

The High Court bench delivered a short verdict on September 2 last year following a writ petition, scrapping Article 116 of the constitution, which had vested the powers of control and discipline of lower court judges in the president.

The verdict also scrapped provisions of the fourth and 15th amendments that upheld presidential control.

The writ petition was filed on August 25, 2024, by Supreme Court lawyers Mohammad Saddam Hossen, Md Zahirul Islam, Mustafizur Rahman, Abdullah Sadiq, Md Mizanul Hoque, Aminul Islam Shakil, and Jaiad Bin Amjad.

They also asked the High Court to direct the government to establish a separate secretariat for the judiciary and to restore the original provision of article 116 of the charter of 1972.

During the hearing of the petition, the then attorney general Asaduzzaman and intervener Ahsanul Karim argued that article 116 maintains checks and balances among state organs, noting that the law ministry cannot transfer or post any judge without the Supreme Court’s approval.

By contrast, amicus curiae (friend of the court) Sharif Bhuiyan, along with petitioners’ counsel Mohammad Shishir Manir and intervener Dr Mahiuddin, contended that article 116 undermines judicial independence and the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

In the full text of the judgment, the High Court restored the original 1972 provision of article 116, which empowers the Supreme Court to oversee the posting, promotions and leaves of judges in the lower judiciary, and declared the Bangladesh Judicial Service (Disciplinary) Rules, 2017, unconstitutional.

Article 116 says, “The control (including the power of posting, promotion and grant of leave) and discipline of persons employed in the judicial service and magistrates exercising judicial functions shall vest in the President and shall be exercised by him in consultation with the Supreme Court.”

On November 29 last year, the interim government promulgated the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance, 2025, for the establishment of the SC Secretariat to ensure the judiciary’s full independence.

The Supreme Court Secretariat started functioning after the then chief justice Syed Refaat Ahmed inaugurated its offices on the Supreme Court premises on December 11 last year.

However, on April 2, a special parliamentary committee to scrutinise interim government ordinances recommended that 20 of the ordinances be allowed to expire, including those aimed at judicial independence.

The four ordinances that were proposed to be repealed straightaway are Jatiya Sangsad Secretariat (Interim Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2024; Supreme Court Judges Appointment Ordinance, 2025; Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance, 2025; and Supreme Court Secretariat (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026.