Jeopardising the judiciary
In the recent past, the judiciary showed activism on many occasions, facilitating our hard-earned democracy and upholding human rights. However, separation of the judiciary is not at all popular with our ruling political parties as has been exposed by even the present government's lukewarm attitude toward putting that into effect. The government's inordinate delay in implementing it, and stiff resistance from the bureaucracy are glaring instances of the attempts at delaying and, if possible, choking the call for separation of the judiciary.
To this failure has been added the glaring examples of politicisation of the judiciary. In this regard the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) prepared a letter, as they thought they needed to take some steps to protect the judiciary as an effective body, and handed it over to the chief justice. The letter mentioned some points which triggered resentment among lawyers. Couple of the points are:
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. The senior-most judge of the High Court Division, having to his credit a number of important and outstanding judgments, was superseded several times by his juniors and was elevated to the Appellate Division. He has now been given the limited work of a single judge, thereby depriving the country of the quality and contribution of an experienced judge with great potentiality for contributing to Bangladesh jurisprudence.
The final hearing of the writ petition challenging the legality of the holding of two constitutional posts at the same time by the CEC M A Aziz appeared in the daily cause list of the Division Bench comprising Justice Md. Awlad Ali and Justice Begum Zinat Ara. But, just before the court could take up that particular item for hearing, the power of that bench to hear cases filed in the year 2005 was taken away in the midst of the bench hearing the daily list.
Meanwhile, a news item published recently in The Daily Star discloses that -- since coming to power in 2001 -- the BNP-led alliance government has appointed forty-five additional High Court judges in the last five years. Of them, the government confirmed the services of thirty-seven. In all of these appointments, there had been allegations of politicisation and nepotism. There are also allegations that some of these judges had been active leaders of the BNP.
The alliance government appointed eleven additional judges in July 2002, nine judges in April 2003, six in August 2003, and finally nineteen in August 2004. The SCBA brought allegations of blatant politicisation against all these appointments. These appointments also triggered forceful agitation on the High Court premises. Regrettably, however, the trend was almost the same, though of a lesser magnitude, during the previous AL rule.
The AL government refrained from appointing Justice KM Hasan to the Appellate Division, although the chief justice had recommended in favour of him. KM Hasan was the senior-most judge. But the AL government appointed his juniors above him at the Appellate Division. After coming to power, the alliance government took "remedial" measures by elevating his position. Even a High Court Division Bench, in 2002, recommended that the appointment of the judges should be kept above political considerations. It also observed that the Supreme Court recommendations on judges' appointments must be made effective and meaningful.
In fact, appointment of judges on the basis of political complexion has reached unmanageable proportions these days. Undeniably, such appointments should be free from influence of partisan politics to ensure justice for the people. Eminent citizens made such remarks at a discussion held recently. They also said that the absence of an independent and impartial judiciary, inordinate delay in adjudication of cases, high cost of litigation, and a dearth of legal aid are hindering justice for the people.
Accordingly, many legal experts repeatedly called for removal of all judges who were appointed on political considerations in the last two years. Ironically, however, most of them have been confirmed, including two even without the chief justice's recommendation. And violation of seniority in promoting a specific judge has added fuel to the fire. Legal experts very rightly remark that respect for the constitution and rule of law are lamentably absent now, and that increasing inefficiency and corruption in law enforcing agencies are resulting in unabated deterioration of law and order.
Admittedly, judicial supremacy ought to be upheld for the sake of both, the government and the opposition parties. The people are, however, not excluded from it, or rather, more dependent on it, as they have to look to the judiciary whenever all other organs fail and frustrate them. To ensure that, however, there is no alternative to the stemming of the unbridled politicisation of the judiciary.