The High Court has observed that the judiciary can work without fear or bias only when it is truly separated from the executive branch, describing the judicial department as the last resort for citizens seeking redress against injustice.
The observations were contained in the full 185-page text of a landmark verdict, released on the Supreme Court website on Tuesday following the signatures of the two presiding judges.
The court noted that in a constitutional state, the judiciary serves as a vital safeguard against the abuse of power and must function with total neutrality and autonomy.
The court directed the government to establish an independent and separate secretariat for the Bangladesh Supreme Court within three months of the order, in accordance with proposals from the Supreme Court authorities.
The bench, comprising Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury, emphasised that ending the “dual rule” – referring to the joint authority of the Supreme Court and the Law Ministry – is essential to ensuring the autonomy and integrity of the judiciary.
The verdict, originally delivered on 2 September last year, returned the control and discipline of subordinate court judges to the Supreme Court. It also scrapped the 2017 disciplinary rules for lower court judges.
Subsequently, on 30 November that year, the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs issued the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance-2025 to achieve full separation from the executive.
According to the verdict, the new independent secretariat must be established within the Supreme Court premises. The court expressed its belief that judicial independence must exist not only on paper but also in spirit, action, and in the perceptions of the public.
This separate secretariat is expected to increase transparency in policy-making, ensure proper budget allocation and infrastructure development, and bring clarity to the transfer and promotion of judges.
The legal proceedings began on 25 August 2024, when seven lawyers filed a writ petition challenging the validity of Article 116 of the Constitution and the 2017 Judicial Service (Discipline) Rules.
Following the petition, the High Court issued a rule on 27 October that same year. Advocate Mohammad Shishir Monir represented the petitioners, while Senior Advocate Sharif Bhuiyan served as Amicus Curiae, and Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman represented the state.
Article 116 currently vests the control and discipline of subordinate court officials and magistrates in the president, who exercises this power in consultation with the Supreme Court. The petitioners argued that, in practice, this leads to direct executive interference, which undermines judicial independence.
The court noted that while the original 1972 Constitution gave control of the subordinate courts to the Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment in 1974 transferred this power to the President.
Following various amendments and court rulings, the current provision was eventually reinstated through the Fifteenth Amendment in 2011.
