Executive, judiciary row holds centre court

The judiciary was at the centre of political discourse for some landmark judgments delivered in 2016.
These included a contempt of court verdict against two ministers, war crimes cases against Motiur Rahman Nizami and Mir Quasem Ali, cancellation of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court’s (SC's) rejection of the government appeal against the High Court (HC) order over arrest without warrant, and the Appellate Division’s order on issuing a gazette notification on the code of conduct for trial court judges.
Given the gravity of these verdicts, the whole year was marked by tension between the executive and the judiciary.
In January, Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha stated that writing of verdicts by retired justices was illegal.
Though the President had decided that there was no need for issuing a gazette notification on disciplinary and conduct rules for lower court judges, the SC's Appellate Division asked the law ministry to issue a gazette notification on the matter by January 15.
On March 27, the apex court in a majority verdict rejected the unconditional apology tendered by two ministers—food minister Qamrul Islam and Liberation War affairs minister AKM Mozammel Huq—for contempt of court and fined each Tk. 50,000. The court also warned to jail them for seven days if they failed to deposit the fine. The two ministers were accused of making contemptuous statements against the Chief Justice and the judiciary regarding the verdict in war criminal Mir Quasem Ali’s appeals case. 

Then, on September 2, the full copy of the SC verdict said the accused ministers had violated their oaths of office by questioning the authority of the judiciary. Meanwhile, the High Court Division was lauded by the countrymen for taking the initiative to release people languishing in jail for a long time without trial.
A big row was triggered when Surendra Kumar Sinha, in a message on the first anniversary of his taking office as the 21st Chief Justice, criticised judges writing judgments after retirement, saying it went against the Constitution.
Reacting to his comments, noted jurists said the writing of judgments elaborately after retirement by SC judges was neither illegal nor unconstitutional since the verdicts were pronounced by the judges before retirement.
In the wake of the controversy, law, justice and parliamentary affairs minister Anisul Huq told Parliament on January 26 that writing verdicts after retirement was not illegal and unconstitutional. The scrapping of the 16th Amendment by the HC was another point of contention between the executive and the judiciary.
On September 17, 2014, the Jatiya Sangsad had passed the Constitution (16th Amendment) Bill that empowered Parliament to remove SC judges for “incapacity and misconduct”. The HC, however, scrapped the Amendment on May 5 in response to a writ petition.
On the same day, three ministers and a number of treasury and opposition MPs criticised the HC verdict. Law minister Anisul Huq, commerce minister Tofail Ahmed and minister of state for labour Mujibul Haque Chunnu said the verdict was unconstitutional and beyond the HC’s jurisdiction. The matter is now pending in the SC as the government had filed an appeal against the HC order.
On May 24, the apex court validated a 2003 HC verdict asking the government to amend two CrPC statutes—Sections 54 and 167—that allow police to arrest anyone on suspicion without warrant and detain him/her for a period of 15 days with magisterial approval.
In the full text of the verdict released on November 10, the SC rejected the government’s appeal against the HC order on the matter.
Earlier on January 11, 2015, the apex court’s Appellate Division had disposed of the appeal petition filed by the government challenging the HC order that declared the Warrant of Precedence as illegal. Another conflict arose when the SC and the law ministry gave counter letters to each other over relocation of the International Crimes Tribunal.
On August 18, the SC wrote to the law ministry to relocate the ICT from its old High Court building and to hand over its possession by October 3. But on October 30, the law ministry sent a letter to the SC’s registrar general, requesting the apex court to review its directive.
Following this, the SC sent another letter to the ministry on December 4, asking it to relocate the ICT by December 31.
In a verdict, the Appellate Division rejected the review petition filed by Jamaat-e-Islami ameer Matiur Rahman Nizami against his death sentence for war crimes in 1971. In another verdict on August 29, the SC upheld the death penalty for war criminal and Jamaat-e-Islami leader Mir Quasem Ali. Later, the government executed both the convicts in accordance with the apex court’s verdict.

Executive, judiciary row holds centre court

The judiciary was at the centre of political discourse for some landmark judgments delivered in 2016. These included a contempt of court verdict against two ministers, war crimes cases against Motiur Rahman Nizami and Mir Quasem Ali, cancellation of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Courts (SCs) rejection of the government appeal against the High Court (HC) order over arrest without warrant, and the Appellate Divisions order on issuing a gazette notification on the code of conduct for trial court judges. Given the gravity of these verdicts, the whole year was marked by tension between the executive and the judiciary. In January, Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha stated that writing of verdicts by retired justices was illegal. Though the President had decided that there was no need for issuing a gazette notification on disciplinary and conduct rules for lower court judges, the SCs Appellate Division asked the law ministry to issue a gazette notification on the matter by January 15. On March 27, the apex court in a majority verdict rejected the unconditional apology tendered by two ministersfood minister Qamrul Islam and Liberation War affairs minister AKM Mozammel Huqfor contempt of court and fined each Tk. 50,000. The courtalso warned to jail them for seven days if they failed to deposit the fine. The two ministers were accused of making contemptuous statements against the Chief Justice and the judiciary regarding the verdict in war criminal Mir Quasem Alis appeals case. Then, on September 2, the full copy of the SC verdict said the accused ministers had violated their oaths of office by questioning the authority of the judiciary. Meanwhile, the High Court Division was lauded by the countrymen for taking the initiative to release people languishing in jail for a long time without trial. A big row was triggered when Surendra Kumar Sinha, in a message on the first anniversary of his taking office as the 21st Chief Justice, criticised judges writing judgments after retirement, saying it went against the Constitution. Reacting to his comments, noted jurists said the writing of judgments elaborately after retirement by SC judges was neither illegal nor unconstitutional since the verdicts were pronounced by the judges before retirement. In the wake of the controversy, law, justice and parliamentary affairs minister Anisul Huq told Parliament on January 26 that writing verdicts after retirement was not illegal and unconstitutional. The scrapping of the 16th Amendment by the HC was another point of contention between the executive and the judiciary. On September 17, 2014, the Jatiya Sangsad had passed the Constitution (16th Amendment) Bill that empowered Parliament to remove SC judges for incapacity and misconduct. The HC, however, scrapped the Amendment on May 5 in response to a writ petition. On the same day, three ministers and a number of treasury and opposition MPs criticised the HC verdict. Law minister Anisul Huq, commerce minister Tofail Ahmed and minister of state for labour Mujibul Haque Chunnu said the verdict was unconstitutional and beyond the HCs jurisdiction. The matter is now pending in the SC as the government had filed an appeal against the HC order. On May 24, the apex court validated a 2003 HC verdict asking the government to amend two CrPC statutesSections 54 and 167that allow police to arrest anyone on suspicion without warrant and detain him/her for a period of 15 days with magisterial approval. In the full text of the verdict released on November 10, the SC rejected the governments appeal against the HC order on the matter. Earlier on January 11, 2015, the apex courts Appellate Division had disposed of the appeal petition filed by the government challenging the HC order that declared the Warrant of Precedence as illegal. Another conflict arose when the SC and the law ministry gave counter letters to each other over relocation of the International Crimes Tribunal. On August 18, the SC wrote to the law ministry to relocate the ICT from its old High Court building and to hand over its possession by October 3. But on October 30, the law ministry sent a letter to the SCs registrar general, requesting the apex court to review its directive. Following this, the SC sent another letter to the ministry on December 4, asking it to relocate the ICT by December 31. In a verdict, the Appellate Division rejected the review petition filed by Jamaat-e-Islami ameer Matiur Rahman Nizami against his death sentence for war crimes in 1971. In another verdict on August 29, the SC upheld the death penalty for war criminal and Jamaat-e-Islami leader Mir Quasem Ali. Later, the government executed both the convicts in accordance with the apex courts verdict.