judges’ code of conduct

Law minister submits draft of judges’ code of conduct to CJ

The much-talked-about draft of the code of conduct and disciplinary rules for lower court judges has been submitted to Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha. Law minister Anisul Huq handed over the draft to the Chief Justice yesterday (Thursday).

Huq told reporters: “If the Chief Justice gives his consent, it will be sent to the President for his approval. After the President’s approval, the ministry will issue a gazette notification on it.”

Huq, however, refused to reveal the contents of the draft rules.

According to Supreme Court sources, the Chief Justice has asked apex court officials concerned to scrutinise the draft rules. On July 23, the Appellate Division had given the government one more week to issue a gazette notification. Before this, the government was given a two-week ultimatum.

Earlier, the government took time from the apex court as many as 22 times to issue the gazette notification.

The December 2, 1999, verdict by the Appellate Division in the historic State vs Masdar Hossain case mandated the  drafting of a 12-point set of guidelines on the separation of the judiciary from the executive. Finally, the judiciary was officially separated in November 2007, but the disciplinary rules for lower court judges are yet to be finalised. For several years, the SC has been issuing multiple rulings, asking the government to issue a gazette notification on the rules. The government later drafted the rules and sent them to the top court for its opinion on May 7, 2015.

On August 28, last year, the Appellate Division declared that the government’s draft rules contradicted with the verdict in the Masdar Hossain case because the draft was similar to the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985. After revising the draft rules, the SC had sent them to the law ministry and asked the government to issue a gazette notification by November 6.

However, instead of issuing a gazette notification, the government kept seeking more time from the court.

judges code of conduct

Law minister submits draft of judges code of conduct to CJ

The much-talked-about draft of the code of conduct and disciplinary rules for lower court judges has been submitted to Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha. Law minister Anisul Huq handed over the draft to the Chief Justice yesterday (Thursday). Huq told reporters: If the Chief Justice gives his consent, it will be sent to the President for his approval. After the Presidents approval, the ministry will issue a gazette notification on it. Huq, however, refused to reveal the contents of the draft rules. According to Supreme Court sources, the Chief Justice has asked apex court officials concerned to scrutinise the draft rules. On July 23, the Appellate Division had given the government one more week to issue a gazette notification. Before this, the government was given a two-week ultimatum. Earlier, the government took time from the apex court as many as 22 times to issue the gazette notification. The December 2, 1999, verdict by the Appellate Division in the historic State vs Masdar Hossain case mandated the drafting of a 12-point set of guidelines on the separation of the judiciary from the executive. Finally, the judiciary was officially separated in November 2007, but the disciplinary rules for lower court judges are yet to be finalised. For several years, the SC has been issuing multiple rulings, asking the government to issue a gazette notification on the rules. The government later drafted the rules and sent them to the top court for its opinion on May 7, 2015. On August 28, last year, the Appellate Division declared that the governments draft rules contradicted with the verdict in the Masdar Hossain case because the draft was similar to the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985. After revising the draft rules, the SC had sent them to the law ministry and asked the government to issue a gazette notification by November 6. However, instead of issuing a gazette notification, the government kept seeking more time from the court.