CJ statement not legally bound: Law minister

Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha’s statement relating to judges writing copies of verdict after retirement has no legal or constitutional basis, law minister Anisul Huq has said.
The Chief Justice (CJ) observed that writing copies of verdict after retirement is unconstitutional.
“Some judges make abnormal delay in completing copies of verdict. And some judges continue to write copies of the verdict for a long period even after their retirement, which is unlawful and unconstitutional,” the CJ observed in a message marking the first anniversary of his taking oath of office.
The message was posted on the SC website on January 19.
“His (Chief Justice) statement has no legal or constitutional basis. It is unprecedented if anyone misinterprets the Constitution following misunderstanding between two judges,” the law minister made the observation while talking to this correspondent on Tuesday night.
The Constitution did not restrict the judges that they could not write copies of verdict after retirement. The Supreme Court rules also do not bar judges from writing the verdict after retirement. Hence, the writing of copies of the verdict by judges after retirement could not be considered as unconstitutional, the law minister pointed out.
Barrister Rafique-ul Huq echoed the same view. He said the Chief Justice's statement cannot be construed as law. “If he gives a ruling in court regarding the matter, it will be legally bound and every judge would have to follow his verdict. But this has no legal value as he has just made a statement,” he added.
Former law minister Barrister Shafique Ahmed told The Independent that the practice of writing of verdicts by  retired judges has been continuing since long. “Hence, I don’t agree with the Chief Justice's statement,” he added.
Referring to the British judicial system, he said the judges there declare the summery of the verdict in open court. "The judges write the detailed verdict later on, and this practice has been continuing in our country traditionally," the former law minister noted. It is not possible to write the full judgement before retirement, as judges have to conduct the judicial function till the day of their retirement and they have to declare the verdict on the last day of

their office. Hence, they have the right to write the verdict even after retirement, he noted.
Echoing the same view with law minister Anisul Huq, the former law minister said the specific time frame of writing copies of the verdict has not been mentioned in the Constitution or in the Supreme Court’s Rules. Hence, judges can legally write copies of the verdict even after retirement, he noted.
However, the former minister said no one should unusually delay writing copies of the verdict after retirement, as in that case litigants would have to suffer.
The judges of the Supreme Court take oath to protect and guard the Constitution and laws of the country. But after retirement, a judge is considered a common man, and the oath he or she took becomes ineffective, the CJ said in his observation.
“The document of the court is public document. The judges lose the right to keep the public document under their custody, and to prepare the verdict copy and to put their signature on it after their retirement. I hope that keeping full respect for the law, the judges would refrain from doing such unlawful work in future,” the CJ said in the message.

 

CJ statement not legally bound: Law minister

Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinhas statement relating to judges writing copies of verdict after retirement has no legal or constitutional basis, law minister Anisul Huq has said. The Chief Justice (CJ) observed that writing copies of verdict after retirement is unconstitutional. Some judges make abnormal delay in completing copies of verdict. And some judges continue to write copies of the verdict for a long period even after their retirement, which is unlawful and unconstitutional, the CJ observed in a message marking the first anniversary of his taking oath of office. The message was posted on the SC website on January 19. His (Chief Justice) statement has no legal or constitutional basis. It is unprecedented if anyone misinterprets the Constitution following misunderstanding between two judges, the law minister made the observation while talking to this correspondent on Tuesday night. The Constitution did not restrict the judges that they could not write copies of verdict after retirement. The Supreme Court rules also do not bar judges from writing the verdict after retirement. Hence, the writing of copies of the verdict by judges after retirement could not be considered as unconstitutional, the law minister pointed out. Barrister Rafique-ul Huq echoed the same view. He said the Chief Justices statement cannot be construed as law. If he gives a ruling in court regarding the matter, it will be legally bound and every judge would have to follow his verdict. But this has no legal value as he has just made a statement, he added. Former law minister Barrister Shafique Ahmed told The Independent that the practice of writing of verdicts by retired judges has been continuing since long. Hence, I dont agree with the Chief Justices statement, he added. Referring to the British judicial system, he said the judges there declare the summery of the verdict in open court. The judges write the detailed verdict later on, and this practice has been continuing in our country traditionally, the former law minister noted. It is not possible to write the full judgement before retirement, as judges have to conduct the judicial function till the day of their retirement and they have to declare the verdict on the last day of their office. Hence, they have the right to write the verdict even after retirement, he noted. Echoing the same view with law minister Anisul Huq, the former law minister said the specific time frame of writing copies of the verdict has not been mentioned in the Constitution or in the Supreme Courts Rules. Hence, judges can legally write copies of the verdict even after retirement, he noted. However, the former minister said no one should unusually delay writing copies of the verdict after retirement, as in that case litigants would have to suffer. The judges of the Supreme Court take oath to protect and guard the Constitution and laws of the country. But after retirement, a judge is considered a common man, and the oath he or she took becomes ineffective, the CJ said in his observation. The document of the court is public document. The judges lose the right to keep the public document under their custody, and to prepare the verdict copy and to put their signature on it after their retirement. I hope that keeping full respect for the law, the judges would refrain from doing such unlawful work in future, the CJ said in the message.