A heated exchange broke out between Chief Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury and Supreme Court Bar Association President AM Mahbub Uddin Khokon at the Appellate Division over a request to reduce a fine imposed on a lawyer. At one stage, the chief justice and four other judges of the Appellate Division left the courtroom.
Supreme Court administration sources said the court did not sit again after the incident on Tuesday.
The argument took a turn for the worse when Khokon told the chief justice, “After you became chief justice, lawyers’ incomes have declined.”
The chief justice responded, “After I became chief justice, have lawyers’ incomes declined?”
Khokon said the Appellate Division previously had 11 judges and three benches, while there is now only one bench. “If a case gets a stay order, it takes a long time for the hearing to take place. In that sense, income has declined,” he said.
The chief justice replied, “The statement you have made is absolutely tantamount to contempt of court. Since you have made such a serious statement, I will not participate in court proceedings today.”
Several other lawyers praised the chief justice’s role. A senior BNP-aligned lawyer said the chief justice delivers orders based on law, references and case records and performs his duties responsibly.
He said the chief justice’s approach had reduced the influence previously enjoyed by some prominent lawyers, affecting the income of many BNP-supporting lawyers.
Another lawyer said that although Khokon and Attorney General Ruhul Quddus Kazal belong to the same political camp, they have had longstanding differences that have surfaced on several occasions.
The dispute stemmed from an order imposing Tk5 lakh costs each on a writ petitioner and his lawyer over multiple writ petitions and concealment of information. The bench headed by the chief justice directed them to deposit the amount with a children’s hospital within 30 days.
The individuals fined were writ petitioner Md Nur Alam and lawyer Sufia Ahmed.
The case relates to the appointment of Md Mizanur Rahman Murad as a kazi (marriage registrar) in 2018. Later, the High Court cancelled Murad’s appointment following a writ petition in 2022.
Murad then moved the Appellate Division, which stayed the High Court order, allowing him to continue serving as a kazi.
Lawyer Aneek R Haque, Shishir Monir and Amit Dasgupta appeared for Murad.
Attorney General Ruhul Quddus Kazal said the plaintiff had filed five writ petitions challenging the same order but did not mention that an earlier petition had already been dismissed. This prompted the Appellate Division to impose costs on the lawyer and writ petitioner.
At one stage, Khokon requested the court to reduce the cost imposed on lawyer Sufia. The chief justice replied that the order was issued after considering all aspects and would not be changed.
“Serious fraud has been committed here,” the chief justice said.
Around 12:30pm, the chief justice and other judges of the bench left the courtroom.
After the incident, Khokon told journalists that he had respectfully informed the chief justice that the number of cases in the Appellate Division had declined after he took charge, affecting lawyers’ incomes.
Regarding his request, Khokon said, “I spoke as a representative of lawyers and respectfully raised these issues. I did not expect the chief justice to react so strongly.”
Attorney General Kazal said Khokon appeared in the case on behalf of the plaintiff and that no discussion on lawyers’ welfare took place during the proceedings.
“The chief justice gives importance to these matters,” he said, adding that they did not expect any lack of transparency in the judicial process.
The incident drew mixed reactions among lawyers.
Former convenor of Bangladesh Law Association Monir Hossain told TIMES, “The Bar Association president can request a reduction in a lawyer’s punishment or costs. However, the costs imposed by the court were not unreasonable.”
“If the country’s chief law officer makes comments to divert the issue, I have objections to that,” he said.
Monir said if the Bar president made any mistake while seeking a reduction of costs, it was inappropriate. However, he added that the chief justice could have resolved the matter while remaining in the courtroom.
Mahbubur Rahman Khan, publicity secretary of the Jatiyatabadi Ainjibi Forum, told TIMES that disagreements between courts and lawyers were not unusual.
“Sometimes judges become annoyed or hurt by lawyers’ behaviour and leave the courtroom,” he said.
Regarding Khokon’s remarks on lawyers’ declining income, he said, “It is not clear from what perspective the Bar president made the statement.”
He added that the chief justice had not restricted lawyers’ cases or instructed courts on granting or denying bail.
Senior lawyer Syed Mamun Mahbub said only the chief justice could explain why he left the courtroom. However, he said Khokon’s remarks could have been debated without turning the matter personal.
