Kazi Zahidul Hasan :Senior lawyers on Wednesday expressed dissatisfaction over the “Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2016” that increased pecuniary jurisdiction of district judges to dispose of the civil cases. They also sounded skeptical on whether it would bring the desired results or may even work in the negative. The government on May 12 issued Gazette Notification to the effect that the “Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2016” has been put into effect forthwith. But the unilateral move of the Law Ministry caught the lawyers in the higher judiciary by surprise. They believe since the issue is highly sensitive in many respects, the Law Ministry and the Attorney General Office should have consulted all stakeholders to take commonly agreed decisions on the amendment clauses. Senior lawyers at Bangladesh Supreme Court have resented the Law Ministry’s one sided action and demanded review and more consensus amendments that would address the critical realities in the ground. Already exhausted by pending cases, they said, with the increase of pecuniary jurisdiction the lower courts will have to deal with more cases and face further backlog of pending cases intensifying miseries to the litigants. “It is unfortunate that the government passed the law without any discussion with the legal community. It should take consent from the stakeholders prior to the making the amendments final,” Yusuf Hossain Humayun, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, told The New Nation on Wednesday.He opined that the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of district judges should have been done with due consultations with the Bar Association and the judges, particularly the opinion of the Chief Justice was more important in this respect. The Supreme Court Bar Association President expressed the fear that the amendments have been done to address the problem of judicial delays, at High Court but it might in some cases end up in “speedy delivery of injustice” because many other reasons. “We have already brought it to the notice of the Chief Justice and we will sit with the Law Minister soon seeking further review of the amended Act,” he added.The Government gazette notification enhanced the power of the lower judiciary in dealing with high value cases. As per the amended Act, a district judge would deal with the civil cases worth Tk five crore which was earlier Tk five lakh, senior assistant judges to Tk 25 lakh which was Tk four lakh while capacity of assistant judges has been increased to Tk 15 lakh from Tk two lakh.The High Court will now have jurisdiction over suits which are above the value of Tk five crore. Opposing the enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction of district judges, Senior Supreme Court lawyer Advocate Abdul Baset Majumder and the Vice-Chairman of Bangladesh Bar Council told The New Nation on Wednesday that it will not bring any good for the judiciary as well as for the litigants.”The government might have framed the law to reduce workload of the High Court by transferring civil suits, valued up to Tk five crore, to the district courts. But we think it would not help much in the sense that the district courts have already been hit by pending cases. Even they lack of necessary infrastructures and manpower to deal with the additional pecuniary jurisdiction,” he observed.Wondered by the big jump in district judges’ pecuniary jurisdiction, Baset Majumder said, it is not a wise decision to extend the jurisdiction all of a sudden and it should be done in phases. “It was a matter of deep regret that the law was enacted without discussion with the lawyers’ community. Even the Law Ministry hurriedly issued the notification causing much discontent to the judiciary,” he said, adding, ‘The law should be framed after holding wide range of discussion with the legal community so that it can give a collective effort to make the law time-befitting and praiseworthy.” Baset Majumder further said now on the litigants may not get the justice because civil suits valued up to Tk five crore to be heard by one district judge whereas a division bench of the High Court comprising two judges earlier would hear such cases to ensure a fair justice.
