A person can be indicted not the institution

At that chaotic time the Chief Justice went abroad to attend some seminars leaving behind different types of gossips and rumours

The Chief Justice of Bangladesh S. K. Sinha has taken a month's leave after returning from abroad. There have been many rumours about his future. I could not guess which one would come true. After the publication of the verdict on the 16th amendment a controversy countrywide erupted especially on his observation about then country's governance and parliament along with other things. The reaction was not good especially, from the government circle and a section of ministers, MPs and hostile media started accusing him of different types of misdemeanours which endangered not only the personal respect of the Chief Justice but also the honour and prestige of the judiciary. The Chief Justice was attacked on a personal level.
At that chaotic time the Chief Justice went abroad to attend some seminars leaving behind different types of gossips and rumours. One of the gossips was that his position and prestige was so much ruptured that it would be impossible for him to continue in this noble position any longer. His retirement is due in 3-4 months. So, after returning home he would take a preparatory leave. That rumour has come true. It is my assumption that if no miracle happens the Chief Justice will not come back to the bench and this is his goodbye to his countrymen. If he goes then we will lose the first Chief Justice in Bangladesh from a minority community and a brave judge who did not hesitate to sign the order of execution of the war criminals of 71. I will hold him in respect until whatever accusations thrown at him are proved beyond all suspicion.
Some of my eminent friends, journalists and politicians from Dhaka accused me of lending support to the Chief Justice on the controversy regarding the verdict on the 16th amendment. I humbly remind them this is not true. From the very beginning of the controversy regarding the verdict and the observation of the Chief Justice I expressed my opinion that the observation was irrelevant and objectionable.

The comments on the observation about parliament and the political situation was not related to the verdict and was abusive in nature. But we should search for remedy within the framework of the constitution and keeping the traditional high respect for the judiciary. Parliament and judiciary are the two pillars of the democratic system. A member of parliament or a judge of the Supreme Court may do something wrong and there is a rule to take action against him or her. But the sovereignty of parliament and the respect of the judiciary should not be violated. We could criticize the Chief Justice, ask for a review of the verdict and expunge the irrelevant observation there. If there was any serious accusation against him there is also provision to bring him to justice in our constitutional framework. But we did not go that way. A section of ministers and members of the party in power went to attack him personally beyond all limits which also damaged the respectability and honour of the judiciary also.

Judiciary is the strongest pillar essential for democracy. In the name of criticizing the Chief Justice we have shown disrespect to the whole judiciary. I do not know how long it will take to restore the honour and prestige of this institution. We lack a full-fledged parliamentary system in the country because a strong opposition is not present in it. In that case if judiciary loses its prestige and regard in the public that can bring disaster for the democracy. I did not support the present Chief Justice but wanted to see that the combined venom directed at him did not damage our judiciary. Only those who did not read my article properly could accuse me of supporting the Chief Justice.

We find the misunderstanding and conflict between the two strong pillars of democracy off and on in other developed countries also. We have seen this conflict in the United States of America between Trump administration and judiciary. My friend Dr. Zillur Rahman recently wrote in one of his articles, 'A strong judiciary, free from the dominance of the executives is a safe guard for democracy. Germany in the first part of last century had no strong judiciary. For that the rise of Hitler and his Fascist party was possible. But America has a strong judiciary and a strong Congress. For that Donald Trump could not become a Hitler'. In present day Britain after the Brexit poll it was the judiciary who curbed the excessive power display of Prime Minister, Theresa May.

Unfortunately, in the Afro-Asian countries the judiciary cannot play its proper role for the high handedness of the executives. India has a strong and independent judiciary who can resist the excessive power play of even the Prime Minister. But there is proof that in India also judiciary cannot always exercise their full independence properly. In the last century India had a law to detain people for an indefinite period without trial. It was known as MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act). In October 1972 there was a case to repeal this black law. A bench of 7 members was constituted for the hearing of this case. The head of the bench was Justice Sholat. The verdict of this case went against the government of India. The verdict said, '17A section of MISA was a violation against the country's constitution and this section must be repealed'. After this verdict three judges of that bench, Justice Sholat, Justice Hegrey and Justice Glover had to resign. They were humiliated and Indian government appointed Ajit Nath Roy as the Chief Justice of the country superseding many other Judges including those three. So, nothing new has happened in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh is a country which is fighting for keeping the democratic system for a long time. In this respect a misunderstanding or conflict between executives and judiciary is unfortunate. It is more unfortunate because it happened when Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's love for democracy and humanity was being praised throughout the world and she has been given the title Mother of humanity. The present government and Awami League should try to restore the honour and respect of judiciary and keep this vital pillar of democracy above all controversy. Otherwise, it will not bring any good for them or the country.
    
 London, Wednesday 4 October, 2017

A person can be indicted not the institution

At that chaotic time the Chief Justice went abroad to attend some seminars leaving behind different types of gossips and rumours

The Chief Justice of Bangladesh S. K. Sinha has taken a months leave after returning from abroad. There have been many rumours about his future. I could not guess which one would come true. After the publication of the verdict on the 16th amendment a controversy countrywide erupted especially on his observation about then countrys governance and parliament along with other things. The reaction was not good especially, from the government circle and a section of ministers, MPs and hostile media started accusing him of different types of misdemeanours which endangered not only the personal respect of the Chief Justice but also the honour and prestige of the judiciary. The Chief Justice was attacked on a personal level. At that chaotic time the Chief Justice went abroad to attend some seminars leaving behind different types of gossips and rumours. One of the gossips was that his position and prestige was so much ruptured that it would be impossible for him to continue in this noble position any longer. His retirement is due in 3-4 months. So, after returning home he would take a preparatory leave. That rumour has come true. It is my assumption that if no miracle happens the Chief Justice will not come back to the bench and this is his goodbye to his countrymen. If he goes then we will lose the first Chief Justice in Bangladesh from a minority community and a brave judge who did not hesitate to sign the order of execution of the war criminals of 71. I will hold him in respect until whatever accusations thrown at him are proved beyond all suspicion. Some of my eminent friends, journalists and politicians from Dhaka accused me of lending support to the Chief Justice on the controversy regarding the verdict on the 16th amendment. I humbly remind them this is not true. From the very beginning of the controversy regarding the verdict and the observation of the Chief Justice I expressed my opinion that the observation was irrelevant and objectionable. The comments on the observation about parliament and the political situation was not related to the verdict and was abusive in nature. But we should search for remedy within the framework of the constitution and keeping the traditional high respect for the judiciary. Parliament and judiciary are the two pillars of the democratic system. A member of parliament or a judge of the Supreme Court may do something wrong and there is a rule to take action against him or her. But the sovereignty of parliament and the respect of the judiciary should not be violated. We could criticize the Chief Justice, ask for a review of the verdict and expunge the irrelevant observation there. If there was any serious accusation against him there is also provision to bring him to justice in our constitutional framework. But we did not go that way. A section of ministers and members of the party in power went to attack him personally beyond all limits which also damaged the respectability and honour of the judiciary also. Judiciary is the strongest pillar essential for democracy. In the name of criticizing the Chief Justice we have shown disrespect to the whole judiciary. I do not know how long it will take to restore the honour and prestige of this institution. We lack a full-fledged parliamentary system in the country because a strong opposition is not present in it. In that case if judiciary loses its prestige and regard in the public that can bring disaster for the democracy. I did not support the present Chief Justice but wanted to see that the combined venom directed at him did not damage our judiciary. Only those who did not read my article properly could accuse me of supporting the Chief Justice. We find the misunderstanding and conflict between the two strong pillars of democracy off and on in other developed countries also. We have seen this conflict in the United States of America between Trump administration and judiciary. My friend Dr. Zillur Rahman recently wrote in one of his articles, A strong judiciary, free from the dominance of the executives is a safe guard for democracy. Germany in the first part of last century had no strong judiciary. For that the rise of Hitler and his Fascist party was possible. But America has a strong judiciary and a strong Congress. For that Donald Trump could not become a Hitler. In present day Britain after the Brexit poll it was the judiciary who curbed the excessive power display of Prime Minister, Theresa May. Unfortunately, in the Afro-Asian countries the judiciary cannot play its proper role for the high handedness of the executives. India has a strong and independent judiciary who can resist the excessive power play of even the Prime Minister. But there is proof that in India also judiciary cannot always exercise their full independence properly. In the last century India had a law to detain people for an indefinite period without trial. It was known as MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act). In October 1972 there was a case to repeal this black law. A bench of 7 members was constituted for the hearing of this case. The head of the bench was Justice Sholat. The verdict of this case went against the government of India. The verdict said, 17A section of MISA was a violation against the countrys constitution and this section must be repealed. After this verdict three judges of that bench, Justice Sholat, Justice Hegrey and Justice Glover had to resign. They were humiliated and Indian government appointed Ajit Nath Roy as the Chief Justice of the country superseding many other Judges including those three. So, nothing new has happened in Bangladesh. Bangladesh is a country which is fighting for keeping the democratic system for a long time. In this respect a misunderstanding or conflict between executives and judiciary is unfortunate. It is more unfortunate because it happened when Prime Minister Sheikh Hasinas love for democracy and humanity was being praised throughout the world and she has been given the title Mother of humanity. The present government and Awami League should try to restore the honour and respect of judiciary and keep this vital pillar of democracy above all controversy. Otherwise, it will not bring any good for them or the country. London, Wednesday 4 October, 2017