A growing legal storm is brewing over the government’s decision to pass the Supreme Court (SC) Secretariat (Repeal) Bill, with critics warning that it undermines judicial independence and defies a High Court (HC) ruling.
The SC Secretariat was established through an ordinance by the interim government in a bid to ensure the judiciary’s autonomy. However, following the passage of the repeal bill by parliament, experts are raising concerns that not keeping the secretariat operational would violate the spirit of the HC verdict issued on 2 September last year.
In its ruling, the HC directed the government to establish a separate secretariat for the judiciary within three months. Since no appeal was filed against the ruling, the directive remains legally binding, leaving experts questioning the legality of the government’s latest move.
Legal implications and court orders
Constitutional expert Sharif Bhuiyan stressed that the HC directive is still in effect and must be followed. “The court’s order was clear, and the absence of a functional secretariat would be in direct contradiction to the ruling,” he said. “This could even be considered contempt of court.”
Senior SC lawyer Muhammad Belayet Hossain echoed Bhuiyan’s concerns, emphasizing that the decision to abolish the secretariat’s operations could lead to serious legal consequences. “If the government moves ahead with this repeal without any stay order from the Appellate Division, it will violate the court’s explicit instruction,” he explained.
Disruption of judicial functions
The secretariat, which officially began operations in December 2025, was staffed with a secretary, 15 judicial officers, and 19 support staff. With the passage of the repeal bill, questions are now being raised about the fate of these officials, particularly as their roles were created in direct compliance with the HC order.
Lawyer Shishir Monir, who has been involved in the case, argued that the repeal undermines the principle of judicial independence. “This creates a visible conflict between the judiciary and parliament,” Monir said. “Until a stay order is granted, the ruling remains effective, and the government is bound to comply.”
The role of the Appellate Division
Attorney General Ruhul Quddus Kajal, however, suggested that the matter was not settled and should be referred to the Appellate Division for final clarification. “While the High Court did issue directives, the issue at hand involves complex constitutional interpretation. It is crucial that the Appellate Division settles this matter definitively,” Kajal said.
One of the key elements of controversy stems from a broader constitutional issue. Under Article 116 of the Constitution, the president has the authority to control magistrates in subordinate courts, including decisions on postings and promotions. The HC ruling, however, struck down this provision, transferring control and disciplinary authority over these magistrates to the Supreme Court.
The conflict surrounding the SC Secretariat’s future highlights ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the legislature, raising questions about the boundaries of power in Bangladesh’s constitutional framework.
