The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (SC) has adjourned until 1 September the hearing on an appeal challenging a High Court verdict that directed the establishment of a separate and independent secretariat for the judiciary.
The order was issued on Tuesday by the Appellate Division headed by the chief justice following an application from the state.
Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman appeared for the state during the proceedings.
Earlier on 9 June, the Appellate Division stayed the High Court judgment that directed the formation of a separate Supreme Court Secretariat for the judiciary.
The court had fixed 16 June for hearing the appeal, which has now been adjourned. The stay on the High Court verdict will remain in force until the appeal is disposed of.
On 21 May, the state filed an appeal seeking cancellation of the High Court’s directive regarding the establishment of a separate Supreme Court Secretariat and also prayed for a stay on its operation pending disposal of the appeal.
The High Court verdict was delivered on 2 September last year by a bench comprising Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury, and its full text was published on 7 April this year.
The judgment directed the government to establish a separate and independent secretariat for the Supreme Court within three months in line with the court’s proposal.
Subsequently, the state appealed against the verdict and sought suspension of its operation until the appeal is decided.
The High Court judgment also restored the Supreme Court’s authority over the control and discipline of subordinate court judges and struck down the 2017 Judicial Service (Discipline) Rules.
Later, on 30 November, 2025, the Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Ministry issued the “Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance-2025,” aimed at ensuring full separation of the judiciary from the executive.
Earlier, on 25 August, 2024, seven lawyers filed a writ petition challenging Article 116 of the Constitution and the validity of the 2017 Judicial Service (Discipline) Rules, also seeking directives for the establishment of a separate judicial secretariat. The High Court issued a rule on 27 October of that year.
Under Article 116 of the Constitution, the President is vested with authority over the posting, promotion, control, and disciplinary matters of judicial officers and magistrates performing judicial functions, in consultation with the Supreme Court.
The petitioners said that although consultation with the Supreme Court is required, executive control in practice undermines the independence of the judiciary.
Originally, the 1972 Constitution vested control and discipline of subordinate judiciary in the Supreme Court.
This authority was transferred to the President through the Fourth Amendment in 1974.
The Fifth Amendment later introduced the requirement of consultation with the Supreme Court. Following subsequent constitutional developments, the current provisions of Article 116 remain in force.
