Staff Reporter :
The High Court on Tuesday said that the conduct of Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) in dealing with the inquiry process against retired judge of the Supreme Court Md Zainul Abedin was not at all satisfactory for the simple reason that it had failed to complete the process during the last seven years.
The court also said that the relevant investigation agency or authority should be extra cautious and vigilant while conducting inquiry or investigation against a retired judge of the Supreme Court keeping in view the dignity and prestige of the judiciary as well as the fact that the scale of justice and people’s confidence is reposed on it so that no one is subjected to unnecessary harassment and humiliation with any ulterior motive.
The Bench of Justice M Enayetur Rahim and Justice Shahidul Karim mentioned these observations while delivering a verdict on the rule issued over the legality of the Supreme Court administration’s letter to the ACC about Justice Zainul Abedin.The High Court Bench made seven observations over the Supreme Court administration’s letter.
The court also said in observations that the letter tarnished the image of the judiciary. “The impugned letter has impaired as well as tarnished the image and dignity of the highest court of the country in the estimation of the public at large,” the High Court observed.
“The letter though tends to give a massage that a retired judge of the Supreme Court is immune from criminal prosecution, in fact, no one is immune as such except the President and that too during his term of office,” the HC also observed.
“The letter is amenable to judicial review as it was issued by the office of the Appellate Division under its administrative capacity and therefore, the rule is quite maintainable. In issuing the letter the relevant authority has taken into consideration some extraneous and irrelevant facts and circumstances which has rendered the bonafides of the said authority in question.” “The impugned letter is mere official communication made by the office of the Appellate Division under its administrative capacity and in no way it can be regarded as the opinion of the Supreme Court,” the HC also observed.
