The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday witnessed heated exchange of words between Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha and attorney general (AG) Mahbubey Alam. It was during the much-awaited hearing on an appeal filed by the government against a High Court (HC) verdict that declared the 16th Amendment to the Constitution illegal. This took place in the courtroom, after the five-member bench of the Appellate Division, headed by the Chief Justice, rejected the time petition sought by the AG. At one stage, the chief law officer of the state even told the court that he would be compelled to express “no confidence” in the Chief Justice if the apex court would not grant his prayer.
However, the five-member Appellate Division bench adjourned the hearing till May 21. During the hearing, Mahbubey Alam told the court that it is an important case. But two among the seven judges were not present. The hearing of the appeal should be held in the presence of seven judges of the bench, the AG noted.
He sought two weeks’ adjournment on the hearing as the  two other judges will join the bench within this time.
“We have informed you (AG) that the hearing on the 16th Amendment to the Constitution will continue incessantly. All judges of the Appellate Division will take part in the hearing soon after the starting of arguments in the case. There is no reason to be anxious over the matter,” the CJ said.   
The AG said one justice is sick, while the other is abroad. “I will have no confidence if you (CJ) would not pass an adjournment order as per the time petition,” he noted. At this point, the CJ said: “You (AG) are the chief law officer of the state. Do you speak after thinking whether is it correct or not?”
“It is the Supreme Court. The problem that has arisen over the removal of SC judges should be resolved. The issue should be settled,” the CJ said.
The SC fixed May 21 for hearing arguments on the appeal, after additional attorney general Murad Reza concluded reading out the paper book of the case.
Later, the AG told reporters that the CJ had earlier said that the full bench of the Appellate Division would hear the 16th Amendment to the Constitution case. “But I told him to tender ‘no confidence’ when the CJ told me that a five-member bench would hear the case,” he said.
Advocate Manzill Murshid, counsel for the petitioner, told reporters that the heated arguments took place between the Chief Justice and the attorney general over the hearing on the appeal.
Four amicus curiae (friends of court)—Dr Kamal Hossian, barrister M Amirul Islam, barrister MI Farooqui and Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan—submitted their written statements before the SC over the issue.
The other eight amicus curiae—barrister AF Hassan Arif, barrister Ajmalul Hossain QC, barrister Rafiq-ul Haque,  barrister Rokanuddin Mahmud, TH Khan, AJ Mohammad Ali, barrister Shafique Ahmed  and Barrister Fida M Kamal—are expected to submit their opinions before the apex court by May 21.
The hearing on the much-awaited case began on Monday, with additional attorney general Murad Reza reading out from the High Court verdict. At the end of the day’s hearing, the apex court adjourned the hearing till Tuesday. On February 8, the SC appointed 12 senior jurists as amicus curiae, seeking their opinions on the legality of the 16th Amendment. On September 17, 2014, the Jatiya Sangsad had passed unopposed the “Constitution (16th Amendment) Bill, 2014”, empowering Parliament to impeach judges of the SC for their incapacity or misconduct. Nine SC lawyers filed a writ petition before the HC on November 5, 2014, questioning the legality of the new law. The petition also sought a stay on the operation of the 16th Amendment and also against enactment of any law authorising the removal of SC judges.
After a preliminary hearing, the HC bench of Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury and Justice Md Ashraful Kamal issued a rule asking the government to explain why the Amendment should not be declared illegal for being contrary to the tenets of the Constitution. On May 5, 2016, a three-member special HC bench, headed by Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury, in a majority verdict, declared the 16th Amendment illegal. The HC, however, allowed the government to appeal before the Appellate Division against the verdict. On January 4 this year, the government filed an appeal against the HC verdict.