The Appellate Division on Tuesday suspended a High Court order that directed the government to establish a separate and independent secretariat for the Supreme Court.
The suspension will remain in effect until the appeal is disposed of, with the hearing scheduled for 16 June.
Earlier, on 21 May, the state filed an appeal seeking to overturn the High Court verdict that ordered the establishment of a Supreme Court secretariat.
The verdict was delivered on 2 September last year by a High Court bench comprising Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury. The full judgment was published on 7 April.
In the ruling, the government was directed to establish an independent and separate secretariat for the Bangladesh Supreme Court within three months from the date of the order, in line with a proposal submitted by the Supreme Court authorities.
The state later challenged the verdict before the Appellate Division and also sought a suspension on its operation pending disposal of the appeal.
The High Court judgment also restored the authority to control and discipline subordinate court judges to the Supreme Court. It simultaneously scrapped the Judicial Service (Discipline) Rules, 2017, which governed subordinate courts.
Subsequently, on 30 November of the same year, the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs issued the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance, 2025, aimed at ensuring full judicial independence. The ordinance stated that the judiciary had become completely separate from the executive branch through the measure.
On 25 August 2024, seven lawyers filed a writ petition challenging the validity of Article 116 of the Constitution and the Judicial Service (Discipline) Rules, 2017. They also sought a directive for the establishment of a separate judicial secretariat. The High Court issued a rule on 27 October that year.
Under Article 116 of the Constitution, the responsibility for the control and discipline of persons employed in judicial service and magistrates exercising judicial functions, including posting, promotion and granting leave, rests with the President. The President exercises those powers in consultation with the Supreme Court.
According to the petitioners’ lawyers, Article 116 vests the authority to control and discipline magistrates serving in subordinate courts in the President.
The same provision requires the President to consult the Supreme Court while exercising those powers. They argued that, in practice, the executive branch directly influences the exercise of those powers, which undermines judicial independence.
Under the Constitution adopted in 1972, the authority to control and discipline magistrates serving in subordinate courts rested with the Supreme Court.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in 1974 transferred that authority to the President. Later, the Fifth Amendment added the provision stating that the President would exercise those powers in consultation with the Supreme Court.
After the Appellate Division declared the Fifth Amendment unconstitutional, the current provision of Article 116 was incorporated through the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 2011. The existing wording of Article 116 remains in force today.
