Repeal bills scrapping key interim-era reforms have restored previous rules on judicial appointments, court administration and the National Human Rights Commission Bangladesh, effectively strengthening executive control, critics say.
The bills, passed by parliament on Thursday despite strong opposition, revokes three ordinances that had aimed to enhance the independence of the judiciary and the rights commission.
With the “Supreme Court Judges Appointment (Repeal) Bill” and the “Supreme Court Secretariat (Repeal) Bill”, reforms introduced under the interim administration have been dismantled.
At the centre is the reversal of an independent mechanism for appointing Supreme Court judges. The repealed ordinance had proposed a “Supreme Judicial Appointment Council”, led by the chief justice, to recommend appointments to the president, reducing direct executive influence.
With the repeal, appointments revert to the constitutional framework, where the president acts on the advice of the prime minister under Article 48(3), while Article 95 provides for consultation with the chief justice.
Supporters argue the arrangement ensures democratic accountability. Critics say it reopens the door to executive dominance and weakens efforts to shield judicial appointments from political influence.
A second major change affects the Supreme Court Secretariat. Under interim rules, it was set up as an independent body to oversee lower courts, including postings, promotions and discipline, under the chief justice.
The structure has now been abolished. Its functions, budget and staff will return to the Ministry of Law and Justice, re-centralising control within the executive. The secretariat will cease to exist after presidential assent and gazette notification.
The opposition called the move a setback for judicial independence, saying it undermines efforts to separate the judiciary from executive control. Government supporters argued the interim reforms were constitutionally questionable and risked creating parallel power structures.
Parliament also repealed ordinances that had expanded the powers of the National Human Rights Commission Bangladesh. The House reinstated the 2009 law, replacing provisions that had strengthened its investigative and enforcement authority.
Under the interim framework, the commission could investigate allegations involving law enforcement, conduct inspections, demand documents and recommend disciplinary action or compensation. It also proposed a broader selection committee including civil society, academia and minority representatives.
With the rollback, the commission’s scope is expected to narrow. Investigations involving security forces will depend largely on government cooperation, while appointments will again be dominated by state institutions.
Critics warn this could weaken accountability at a time when rights issues remain sensitive.
Analysts say the changes signal a broader reassertion of executive influence over key institutions. While the government frames the move as a return to constitutional order, opponents see it as a reversal of reforms aimed at strengthening institutional autonomy.
Dhaka University Political Science Professor Sabbir Ahmed said the government is reluctant to support reforms that could dilute concentrated authority.
“Some proposals shift the balance of power. That is why they are not moving forward,” he said.
He added that although democratic transitions often rely on supermajority decisions, these can lead to further centralisation rather than dispersion of power, risking a return to older governance patterns.
