The state has appealed against the High Court verdict directing the establishment of a separate, independent secretariat for the Supreme Court within three months.
Attorney General Ruhul Quddus Kajal confirmed the matter on Thursday.
Earlier, on 7 April, the full text of the High Court judgment was published. A High Court bench comprising Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Debashish Roy Chowdhury pronounced the judgement on 2 September last year.
The verdict struck down Article 116 of the Constitution, which vested the president with authority over magistrates serving in subordinate courts including control over postings, promotions, leave, and disciplinary measures.
As a result, the responsibility for control and discipline of magistrates serving in subordinate courts was vested in the Supreme Court.
The verdict also annulled the Judicial Service (Discipline) Rules of 2017 for subordinate courts.
Lawyer Mohammad Shishir Monir represented the petitioners, while Sharif Bhuiyan acted as amicus curiae. The then Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman represented the state.
On 25 August 2024, seven Supreme Court lawyers filed a. writ petition challenging validity of Article 116 of the Constitution and the Judicial Service (Discipline) Rules of 2017 and seeking directions to establish a separate secretariat for the judiciary. On 27 October that year, the High Court issued a rule.
Under Article 116 of the Constitution, the president is vested with authority over persons employed in the judicial service and magistrates performing judicial functions including postings, promotions, leave, and discipline exercised in consultation with the Supreme Court.
According to the petitioners’ lawyer, this arrangement allows direct interference by the executive branch in judicial matters, undermining judicial independence.
In the 1972 Constitution, the responsibility for control and discipline of magistrates serving in subordinate courts was vested in the Supreme Court.
However, through the Fourth Amendment in 1974, this responsibility was transferred to the president. Later, the Fifth Amendment inserted the phrase “to be exercised by the President in consultation with the Supreme Court.”
When the Appellate Division declared the Fifth Amendment unconstitutional, the 15th Amendment of 2011 reinstated the current provision of Article 116. However, this provision remains in force.
