As social media outrage, professional misconduct and institutional frustration converge, Bangladesh faces a quiet but serious constitutional test: whether criticism of courts is evolving into something more corrosive – the normalisation of attacks on judicial legitimacy itself.
A democracy does not begin to fail when judges make mistakes. In spite of their high level of training, judges may sometimes fall into error. The strength of any legal system lies in its ability to correct those errors through appeals, revisions and review. That is how justice evolves and maintains legitimacy. The real danger arises when dissatisfaction with court decisions shifts from lawful challenge to public attacks on the judiciary’s credibility.
In Bangladesh, this trend is becoming increasingly visible. Judicial decisions are frequently debated on social media, where some dissatisfied lawyers publicly accuse judges of bias, corruption or political influence without evidence, targeting personal integrity rather than legal reasoning. Equally troubling are public remarks by certain law enforcement officials criticising judicial orders, particularly bail decisions, and proposing executive alternatives such as mobile courts. Such comments blur the constitutional separation of powers and risk undermining judicial independence. As Sir Robert Peel, founder of modern policing, observed, the police must strictly adhere to their executive role and refrain from usurping the judiciary’s authority to determine guilt and administer justice.
Viewed in isolation, recent attacks on judicial authority may seem insignificant. Taken together, however, they reveal a deeper constitutional concern: the gradual erosion of respect for the judiciary as an independent and co-equal branch of government. This trend is particularly troubling given the judiciary’s historic role in Bangladesh. Since independence, the courts have served as the ultimate constitutional safeguard against unlawful or arbitrary exercises of power, providing citizens with a forum where rights are protected and disputes are resolved according to law rather than influence. The judiciary has also been central to some of the nation’s most important constitutional developments.
In Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v Bangladesh, the Appellate Division established the basic structure doctrine, affirming that even Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s essential character. Later, in Secretary, Ministry of Finance v Masdar Hossain, the Supreme Court reinforced the separation of the judiciary from the executive, strengthening judicial independence and the rule of law for future generations.
Throughout Bangladesh’s history, the courts have played a vital role in protecting fundamental rights, restraining unlawful exercises of power and ensuring that all persons and institutions remain accountable to the law. The judiciary is not merely an adjudicative body; it is a constitutional safeguard upon which the rule of law depends. For that reason, the growing erosion of judicial legitimacy should concern every citizen. While no court is infallible and criticism of judicial decisions is both legitimate and necessary for legal development, there is a fundamental distinction between challenging a judgment and attacking the integrity of the judge who delivered it. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh recognised this principle in Contempt Petition No. 9 of 2016, holding that objective criticism is permissible but personal attacks and allegations of improper motives undermine public confidence in justice. Similar principles were affirmed in R v Gray and Ambard v Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago, emphasising that criticism must never weaken confidence in judicial independence and integrity.
The underlying constitutional logic is consistent: courts may be questioned, but they must not be delegitimised. The concern in Bangladesh is heightened by the fact that some of this rhetoric originates not only from private individuals but from professionals and state actors. Lawyers are officers of the court. Their professional role carries an obligation to uphold the dignity of the judicial system, even when they disagree with its outcomes. Similarly, police officers operate under a framework of legal discipline that requires respect for judicial authority and compliance with court processes. When individuals in these positions publicly frame judicial decisions as improper or illegitimate, the effect is amplified. Their words carry institutional weight and are often perceived as authoritative assessments rather than personal opinions. This matters because the legitimacy of courts depends not on coercive power, but on public confidence. Once that confidence begins to erode, enforcement of law becomes more difficult, compliance with judgments weakens and the authority of the legal system is gradually diminished.
The rise of social media has transformed public discussion of judicial decisions, allowing criticism – and often unverified allegations – to spread rapidly and widely. Repeated claims of bias, corruption or political influence can gradually shape public perceptions even in the absence of evidence, creating a risk that courts are viewed not as impartial arbiters of law but as participants in political or institutional conflicts.
Comparative experience demonstrates the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between legitimate criticism and attacks on judicial legitimacy. In the United Kingdom, Canada, India and Australia, courts have consistently recognised that robust scrutiny of judicial decisions is both permissible and necessary, while unfounded attacks on judicial integrity undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The central question for Bangladesh is therefore not whether judges should be accountable – they must be – but whether public discourse is increasingly challenging the legitimacy of the judiciary itself. Judicial independence exists not to protect judges from scrutiny, but to protect citizens from arbitrary power and ensure that justice is administered according to law rather than influence.
When public confidence in the judiciary declines, the consequences extend far beyond the courtroom, weakening the very foundations of constitutional governance. The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned that attacks on judicial integrity threaten the administration of justice, a warning that is especially relevant today. The greatest danger is not disagreement with judicial decisions, which is both inevitable and legitimate in a democracy, but the growing tendency to portray courts as adversaries rather than guardians of constitutional rights. Democratic institutions rarely collapse suddenly; they erode gradually through repetition, normalisation and public indifference. For more than five decades, Bangladesh’s judiciary has been a cornerstone of constitutional order and public trust. That trust is a vital constitutional asset. While judicial decisions must remain open to rigorous scrutiny, personal attacks on judges – particularly by legal professionals and public officials – cross the line from criticism to institutional delegitimisation and should be treated as a serious constitutional concern.
(In preparation for this article, I’ve consulted with British Tribunal Judge Barrister Najrul Khasru.)
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The writer is a Deputy Secretary (Additional District Judge), Law and Justice Division, Ministry of Law. Email: [email protected]
