Justice Sheikh Hasan Arif still holds one of Bangladesh’s constitutional offices and draws state benefits, yet for more than 18 months he has neither heard a case, sat on a bench nor delivered a judgment.
The High Court judge has remained entirely excluded from judicial duties since 16 October 2024, when the Supreme Court administration stopped assigning him to cases amid serious allegations of political bias, corruption, and misconduct. Yet, he regularly receives his state salary, allowances, official protocol, and other perks.
Despite the gravity of the accusations, the Supreme Judicial Council has yet to launch a formal investigation.
This prolonged stalemate has created an unprecedented and highly unusual situation within the nation’s highest court: a senior judge remains in office and enjoys full constitutional privileges but performs absolutely no judicial work.
He stands accused but is not formally under investigation, he is removed from the bench, yet remains firmly in office.
Prominent legal experts argue that the case has become a troubling example of delay and uncertainty within the judiciary’s accountability process. They maintain that allegations against any judge should either be investigated promptly or dismissed outright.
Keeping a member of the judiciary indefinitely sidelined, they contend, severely undermines institutional transparency, wastes public money, and leaves both the legal system and the accused individual in permanent limbo.
Supreme Court Registrar General Muhammad Habibur Rahman Siddiqui confirmed the lack of progress, saying, “The Supreme Judicial Council has not started an investigation into Justice Sheikh Hasan Arif. I also have no updated decision from the Council regarding him. Perhaps the Council will announce a decision soon.”
Justice Arif was among 12 High Court judges withdrawn from duties in October 2024 following intense protests by students and lawyers.
Demonstrators demanded the removal of judges they characterised as corrupt, politically partisan, and collaborators with the former regime.
Furthermore, Justice Arif faced specific allegations that he had disparaged protesting students by describing them as ‘tokai’ (street urchin) in a controversial Facebook post during the 2024 mass uprising.
Since that turbulent period, several sidelined judges have resigned or been dismissed. Others remain away from the bench, whilst Justice SM Moniruzzaman was reinstated in April after the allegations against him were deemed unsubstantiated.
Justice Arif’s situation, however, remains unresolved.
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Syed Mamun Mahbub warned that this failure to act sets an undesirable precedent, noting that paying a judge from the public purse without requiring work is “unfortunate in the history of the judiciary.”
Judiciary shaken after uprising
The controversy surrounding Justice Sheikh Hasan Arif emerged amid unprecedented upheaval within the Bangladeshi judiciary following the July 2024 mass uprising and the subsequent fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government.
In the wake of the administration’s collapse, the role of numerous Supreme Court judges came under intense scrutiny.
The Anti-Discrimination Student Movement and several prominent lawyers’ groups fiercely demanded the resignation of judges they accused of political allegiance, corruption, and active collaboration with the previous regime.
Amid these escalating protests, the then Chief Justice and six Appellate Division judges resigned on 10 August 2024.
Pressure intensified on 16 October when student activists and legal organisations besieged the High Court.
To defuse the situation, the Supreme Court administration announced that 12 High Court judges, including Justice Arif, would be barred from judicial benches.
Whilst many of his sidelined colleagues, including Justice Md Rezaul Hasan, Justice Naima Haider, Justice Khurshid Alam Sarkar, Justice Md Akhtaruzzaman, Justice Shahed Nooruddin, Justice Md Aminul Islam, Justice SM Masud Hossain Dolan, Justice Md Ataur Rahman Khan, Justice Ashish Ranjan Das, Justice Khizir Hayat, and Justice Khondkar Diliruzzaman have since resigned or been removed, the uncertainty surrounding Justice Arif persists.
He remains a serving judge of the High Court Division without a bench, receiving full state benefits whilst performing no judicial work.
Furthermore, despite the gravity of the allegations, he has not been placed under a formal inquiry.
This deadlock has drawn sharp attention to the Supreme Judicial Council, the constitutional body tasked with investigating allegations of incapacity or serious misconduct against higher court judges.
The mechanism for removing judges has shifted repeatedly since Bangladesh’s independence, alternating between parliamentary authority and presidential power.
The Council system, originally introduced in 1977, was briefly replaced by the Awami League government’s 16th Amendment in 2014, which sought to restore parliamentary oversight.
However, following a protracted legal battle, the Appellate Division definitively restored the Supreme Judicial Council system on 20 October 2024.
Composed of the Chief Justice and the two next most senior judges of the Appellate Division, the Council is empowered to investigate judges and recommend their removal to the President.
Yet, in Justice Arif’s case, this process has stalled before the first formal stage.
More than 18 months after being stripped of his bench, no investigation has commenced, no decision has been announced, and no date has been set to resolve his status.
For now, he remains a judge in title, but not in practice.
