The Appellate Division has upheld the sixteenth amendment of the Constitution to return the power to remove the judges. As a result, the Supreme Judicial Council has the power to investigate any misconduct of the High Court judges which is known by the petitioner’s lawyer. Although the chief legal officer of the state Mahbubey Alam said there is no chance of it. The constitution which was rejected by the parliament is not a way of reinstatement. Law Minister Anisul Haque said The Supreme Judicial Council was not reinstated due to the cancellation of the Sixth Amendment, it will be decided to get the full verdict. Today, on Monday (July 3rd), the Supreme Court dismissed the sixteenth amendment rejecting the appeal of the High Court, unanimously rejected the appeal. The Appellate Division rejected the appeal.
What is Supreme Judicial Council?
If judges are in violation of the Constitution or are accused of serious misconduct, then they will be investigated by Supreme Judicial Council for their removal. The council, comprising the chief and senior judges of the Supreme Court, will also decide the conduct of the judges. According to Article 3 of Article 96 of Bangladesh Constitution, "There will be a Supreme Judicial Council, which will be referred to as 'Council' in this paragraph, and the next two judges between the Chief Justice of Bangladesh and the other judges will be composed of the elderly. There is a condition in this method that if the Council, at any time, investigates the ability or behavior of a judge of such a member, or if a member of the council is absent, or is unable to work due to illness or any other reason, then the members of the council are the next. He will act as a member of the judge who is senior in the work. "
When the Supreme Judicial Council was reinstated through Monday's order, law minister Anisul Haque said, "The Supreme Judicial Council has not been reinstated due to the cancellation of the Sixth Amendment." He further said, "I do not understand why the Supreme Judicial Council made by the military government to remove the judges is not facing the conflict with the democratic management of the courts. The power that Parliament had in handling the removal of Justice was included in the original constitution of 1972.
The way the Supreme Judicial Council was formed
According to Article 96 of the Constitution of 1972, the power of impeaching the judiciary due to inefficiency, incompetence, corruption, and misconduct was in control of the Jatiya Sangsad (National Parliament). At the time of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975, the fourth amendment to the Constitution was handed over to the President with the power to remove the judges. In 1978, Ziaur Rahman, the military ruler, abolished the President's power to remove the judges in a military order. At this time, the power to remove the judges was given to the Supreme Judicial Council.
In Article 96 (2) of the constitution mentioned, "No judge can be removed without the President's order given by the resolution of the parliament supported by the majority of the two-thirds majority of the total number of members due to proven misconduct or inability."
In 1972, some of those who were involved with the constitution spoke of the decision of declaring the Sixteenth Amendment as a friend of the court. When asked about this change, Barrister Amirul Islam told the Bangla Tribune, "I told the court. Judiciary was not ready in 1972. Many countries have tried to get rid of the process of removal through parliament but failed. Those examples were informed to the court. '
Although the state's highest law person said, "The Supreme Judicial Council is not revived due to the cancellation of the Sixteenth Amendment. Rather, the vacuum is created in the judiciary's removal process. The defendant's lawyer Manzil Morshed challenged the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment saying, "We are not going to give any direction to the verdict or to say anything because, and we went to court against the Sixteenth Amendment. Canceling that, previous will automatically come I action.
According to the verdict on Monday, a new horizon for the judiciary was unveiled, said the defendant's lawyer Manzill Morshed. He said, "If the power to remove the judges was with the parliament, then this amendment has been challenged because the judiciary could not function independently." The Supreme Judicial Council has been constituted by the amendment, the lawyer of the case Manzil Morshed said.
On the question, whether there was any confrontation between the Parliament and the judiciary, the lawyer said, "If any dispute arises in any court, the decision of the Appellate Division is final, it is the Constitution itself. There is no chance of the dispute. Rather, the dispute was resolved. "In response to the question whether the parliamentary sovereignty is effective, he said," This is not correct. Amicus Curiere said in detail about this. The judiciary or the Parliament both work under the Constitution. Rather, Article 7 says that people are sovereign and this power is used by the representatives.
Against this, the Attorney-General Mahbubey Alam told the Bangla Tribune, "It is not supposed to be restored in any way," the opposition lawyer Manzill Morshed said. In my opinion, the constitution which was rejected by the Parliament cannot be restored. Currently void is prevailing. He expressed frustration and said, we had hopes and dreams that will return to Article 96 of the Constitution, for this verdict that will not happen.