The Appellate Division has scheduled 9 June for the hearing of state appeal against a High Court verdict that directed the formation of a separate and independent secretariat for the country’s judiciary.
On Thursday, the chamber court of Justice Farah Mahbub fixed the date following an application by the state. The state is seeking the cancellation of the High Court’s directives and has requested a stay on the verdict’s effectiveness until the appeal is resolved.
Attorney General Md Ruhul Quddus Kazal and Additional Attorney General Aneek R Haque represented the state during hearing, while Advocate Mohammad Shishir Monir appeared for the writ petitioners.
Advocate Monir noted that the chamber court has not granted a stay order on the establishment of a separate secretariat, and the matter has been referred to the full bench of the Appellate Division.
The High Court Verdict The original verdict was delivered on 2 September last year by a bench comprising Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury, with the full text being published on 7 April.
The court ordered the government to establish an independent secretariat for the Supreme Court within three months of the order date, in accordance with proposals from the Supreme Court authorities.
The judgement further returned the authority over the control and discipline of subordinate court judges to the Supreme Court, summarily cancelling the disciplinary rules formulated in 2017.
Subsequently, on November 30 of that year, the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs issued the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance-2025 to ensure the judiciary’s complete independence from the executive branch.
Constitutional Dispute 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.
A formal rule was issued by the High Court on 27 October.
Under the existing Article 116, the president holds the power to control the posting, promotion, and discipline of subordinate court judges and magistrates in consultation with the Supreme Court.
However, the petitioners argue that this framework allows for direct interference by the executive branch, thereby undermining judicial independence.
Historical Context The 1972 Constitution originally vested the control and discipline of subordinate magistrates within the Supreme Court. This authority was transferred to the President through the Fourth Amendment in 1974.
Following the Fifth Amendment and its subsequent declaration as unconstitutional by the Appellate Division, the current provision of Article 116 was eventually reinstated through the 15th Amendment in 2011.
