Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed on Sunday submitted a comprehensive proposal to the Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs to establish a dedicated judicial secretariat under the Supreme Court.
Aimed at enhancing the High Court鈥檚 supervisory role, the proposed secretariat would centralise oversight of all courts and tribunals, in line with Article 109 of the constitution.
The proposal includes concept papers, a draft of the Judicial Secretariat Ordinance 2024, recommended amendments to the Rules of Business 1996, revisions to the Allocation of Business, and an initial organogram for the new body, according to a circular from Supreme Court Registrar General Aziz Ahmed Bhuiyan.
In his address to subordinate court judges, the Chief Justice on September 21 outlined a judiciary reform roadmap, emphasising the need for a judicial secretariat to strengthen the independence of the judiciary.
The chief justice in his address to the judicial officers had also urged the interim government to implement proposals for reforms urgently to enable the judiciary to function neutrally and independently.
He raised the proposals in the presence of law adviser Asif Nazrul and attorney general Md Asaduzzaman while addressing a gathering of subordinate court judges at a ceremony at the Supreme Court garden.
One of the key reforms the chief justice proposed was the establishment of a Supreme Court Secretariat, akin to the Secretariat of the Election Commission and Parliament, which would centralise the administrative authority of the judiciary.
This, he noted, would end the dual administration system currently seen by subordinate court judges, who were now being overseen by both the law ministry and the judiciary.
According to the chief justice鈥檚 speech, the power of appointment, transfer, promotion, and disciplinary actions concerning subordinate judges should be vested in the secretary of the proposed Supreme Court Secretariat, thereby eliminating the need for amendments to existing laws.
Despite a landmark 1999 ruling by the Appellate Division mandating a separation of the judiciary from executive and legislative control, judicial independence remains limited.
The ruling included 12 directives, notably the eighth, which called for full autonomy of the judiciary through a judicial secretariat under the Supreme Court.
While the military-backed caretaker government formally separated the judiciary from the executive on November 1, 2007, successive governments have yet to establish the judicial secretariat critical to this independence.
As a result, the law ministry retains control over key functions of the judiciary, including promotions, postings, and transfers of subordinate court judges, as well as disciplinary actions.
Meanwhile, the High Court on Sunday issued a ruling questioning the constitutionality of Article 116, which grants the president authority over lower court judges 鈥榠n consultation with the Supreme Court.鈥�
The court asked the interim government to explain why the provision should not be declared unconstitutional, as it establishes dual control by both the law ministry and the Supreme Court over the lower judiciary.
Article 116 currently allows the president to oversee appointments, promotions, leave, and disciplinary matters for lower court judges, albeit with consultation from the Supreme Court.
The ruling required responses within four weeks from the cabinet secretary, the law secretary, and the principal officer of the Chief Adviser鈥檚 Office.
The High Court鈥檚 ruling was issued by a bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debashish Roy Chowdhury, following a writ petition filed on August 25 by 10 Supreme Court lawyers.
Representing the petitioners, lawyer Mohammad Shishir Manir argued that Article 116 undermined judicial independence.
The court also asked the government to explain the legality of the Bangladesh Judicial Service (Disciplinary) Rules, 2017, omitting the Supreme Court as the higher authority for the subordinate court judges.
The rules named the president or the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs as the only 鈥榓ppropriate authority鈥� for the lower court judges.
The president framed the rules on December 11, 2017 after law ministry鈥檚 buying times for years to comply with a 12-point directive issued by the Appellate Division in 1999.
The court also asked to explain why a directive should not be given on the government to establish a judicial secretariat.
