The Judicial Reform Commission, in its full report, has recommended amendments, modifications, and additions to 32 articles of the constitution to enhance the judiciary鈥檚 institutional, financial, and functional independence.
The proposed reforms also aim to redefine the roles and powers of the president and the prime minister in judicial affairs.
Senior lawyer Shahdeen Malik observed that the proposed amendments reflect a major shift toward judicial independence, reducing executive influence and strengthening institutional autonomy.
He said that the JRC recommendations aim to eliminate dual administration, establish transparent judicial appointment mechanisms, and reinforce the judiciary鈥檚 authority in governance.
The interim government has released the full reports of six commissions formed on October 3, 2024 in the first phase of its state reform initiatives.
Summaries of these reports were previously published after their submission to chief adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus in January.
The complete reports were made available on February 8 on the websites of the Cabinet Division and the Constitutional Reform Commission.
The JRC proposed key amendments include an amendment to Article 48(3). The commission in the article proposed granting the president the authority to appoint Supreme Court judges, in addition to the chief justice and the prime minister, without requiring the prime minister鈥檚 advice.
Currently, the president must act on the prime minister鈥檚 advice in all matters except the appointment of the prime minister and the chief justice.
The CRC recommended that the president would appoint the chief justice, judges of the Appellate Division and the High Court Division, and the Comptroller and Auditor General through a prescribed method.
The power to determine the number of High Court and Appellate Division judges would shift from the president to the chief justice, who would make recommendations to the president, according to the JRC proposed amendment to Article 94(2).
The recommended amendment to Article 94(4) stipulates that all Supreme Court judges should be designated as Justice and allowed to perform public interest duties to enhance judicial efficiency while maintaining the integrity of the judiciary.
The JRC recommended an amendment to Article 95 to appoint the senior-most Appellate Division judge as the chief justice and establish a Judicial Appointment聽 Commission to oversee Supreme Court appointments.
To insulate judicial appointments from political influence, the CRC proposed a seven-member Judicial Appointment Commission tasked with ensuring a fair and transparent selection process.
Additionally, it recommended that the most senior judge of the Appellate Division should be appointed as the chief justice.
The JRC recommended amending Article 96(1) to increase the retirement age for Supreme Court judges from 67 to 70.
According to JRC鈥檚 proposed amendment to Article 96(3), if allegations of misconduct or incapacity arise against the chief justice, a retired chief justice or retired Appellate Division judge, nominated by the president, would lead the Supreme Judicial Council instead of the sitting chief justice.
While advocating for the retention of the Supreme Judicial Council, the CRC suggested empowering a nine-member high-power National Constitutional Council beside the president to forward complaints of judicial misconduct to the SJC for investigation.
The JRC recommended amending Article 100 to give the chief justice the authority to establish High Court benches in each of the divisional headquarters outside the capital, subject to rules made under Article 107.
The CRC suggested decentralising the High Court by setting up permanent benches in each of the divisional headquarters and keeping the Appellate Division in the capital.
According to the JRC proposed amendment to Article 107, the Supreme Court would no longer require presidential approval to frame rules and regulations in governing its decisions, including those of the High Court, Appellate Division, and subordinate courts.
It also recommended a new definition of contempt of court by amending Article 108, saying that a new definition of contempt of court would be introduced, covering non-compliance with Supreme Court laws, decisions, orders, and directives, as well as any obstruction in their implementation.
It said that the Supreme Court would have the sole authority to investigate and impose penalties for contempt, including determining punishments and trial procedures.
According to the JRC-proposed amended Article 109, the Appellate Division would have supervisory control over the administrative management (but not judicial affairs) of subordinate tribunals, while the High Court Division would oversee the administrative management of subordinate courts and tribunals.
Both executive and judicial authorities would be explicitly required to comply with and enforce Supreme Court laws, decisions, orders, and directives, said the JRC proposed amendment to Article 112.
It proposed an amendment to Article 113 to establish a Supreme Court Secretariat to manage judicial functions. Additionally, the provision requiring presidential approval for the appointment of Supreme Court employees would be removed, shifting this authority to the chief justice and the Supreme Court.
The JRC proposed an amendment to Article 115 to create a Judicial Department to oversee courts and tribunals.
The president would appoint magistrates and judicial staff in consultation with the Supreme Court, replacing the current provision that grants the president sole authority over such appointments.
It also recommended an amendment to Article 116 to transfer the control over judicial personnel including posting, promotion, and discipline from the president to the Supreme Court.
However, presidential approval would still be required for promotions and dismissals.
The commission stated that this change aligned with the Supreme Court鈥檚 Masder Hossain case ruling and aimed to free the judiciary from executive influence.
The CRC recommended renaming subordinate courts as local courts and establishing a Judicial Secretariat under the Supreme Court.
This secretariat would handle the appointment, posting, promotion, leave, and disciplinary matters of judges in local courts, and oversee administrative functions, budgeting, and human resource management.
The JRC proposed an amendment to Article 49 to restrict the president鈥檚 power to grant pardons, reprieves, and commutations of sentences. Such actions would be subject to guidelines and procedures established by law.
It also recommended an amendment to Article 55(2) to restrict the prime minister鈥� executive authority and ensure that the executive power of the Republic is exercised strictly in accordance with the constitution.
The JRC proposed an amendment to Article 55(8) to eliminate the president鈥檚 authority to make rules regarding the allocation and transaction of government business related to the judiciary.
According to the amendment to Article 99(1), retired chief justices, Appellate Division justices, and High Court justices would be barred from holding offices of profit or practicing in any court after retirement or resignation.
However, they could be appointed to judicial or quasi-judicial bodies to support judicial development.
A retired or resigned permanent High Court judge would be allowed to practice in the Appellate Division.
The JRC proposed adding a reference to a Bangladesh Attorney Service alongside the Attorney General in Parts IV and V of the Constitution.
This would establish a permanent attorney service for government law officers. A new department would be created to assist the attorney general, with its structure and appointments regulated under Article 133 relating to the appointment of SC staff.
The CRC also proposed the creation of the Bangladesh Attorney Service, a separate and permanent legal service headed by the attorney general.
Under this system, the attorney general鈥檚 office would be responsible for appointing all law officers in the courts.