The High Court is set to hear a writ petition today challenging the legality of the Supreme Judicial Appointment Council, established under the Supreme Court Judge Appointment Ordinance, 2025.
A bench of Justice AKM Asaduzzaman and Justice Syed Enayet Hossain scheduled the hearing on Monday.
Supreme Court lawyer Ajmol Hossain Khokon filed the petition, questioning four key provisions of the ordinance published in the official gazette on January 21.
The challenged provisions include the establishment of the Supreme Judicial Appointment Council, the designation of the Supreme Court registrar general as the council鈥檚 secretary, the council鈥檚 authority to recommend candidates for High Court and Appellate Division judges, and the selection process for Appellate Division judges.
The petitioner argued that the ordinance imposed a minimum age requirement of 45 years for applicants for the posts of Supreme Court judges, which contradicted constitutional provisions.
The constitution requires a candidate to have at least 10 years of legal practice to qualify as a judge, without specifying an age limit.
He also contended that the council created two categories of candidates for the position of Supreme Court judge, introducing a classification not recognised by the constitution.
The petitioner also highlighted concerns over the role of two senior High Court judges鈥攐ne appointed from the bar and another elected from the judiciary鈥攚ho, while barred from attending selection meetings for Appellate Division judges, could still exert influence over the process.
The appointment council lacks elected representatives, as neither the Supreme Court Bar Association nor the Bangladesh Bar Council has any say in the process, the petitioner also argued.
The ordinance was promulgated by the president upon the recommendation of an interim government commission tasked with reforming the constitution and judiciary.
It aligns with chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed鈥檚 roadmap for judicial reform and fulfills a long-pending constitutional requirement introduced by the fifth amendment in 1978.
Article 95(2)(c) of the constitution mandated the enactment of laws governing Supreme Court judge appointments, but successive governments failed to introduce such legislation allegedly to enable politically motivated or nepotistic appointments.
The petitioner said that the High Court鈥檚 decision on the petition could have significant implications for the future of judicial appointments in Bangladesh.
