Staff Reporter :
The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday appointed 12 senior lawyers as the ‘amicus curiae’ (friends of the court) to give their opinion in the court on an appeal against the High Court (HC) verdict that declared the 16th amendment of the Constitution illegal.An eight-member bench of the Appellate Division headed by the Chief Justice (CJ) Surendra Kumar Sinha disclosed their names.
The amicus curiaes are Justice (rtd) T H Khan, Dr Kamal Hossain, Barrister Amir-ul Islam, Barrister A F Hasan Arif, Barrister Ajmalul Hossain QC, Barrister Rafiq-ul Haque, Barrister Shafique Ahmed, Advocate Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan, Barrister Rokanuddin Mahmud, Barrister M I Farooqui, Advocate A J Mohammad Ali and Barrister Fida M Kamal.
The apex court asked the jurists to place their argument as amicus curiae as the appeal petition is involved with some constitutional and legal matters.
The court also fixed March 7 for further hearing on the appeal after hearing a time-petition filed by the State.
The High Court on May 5, 2016 declared the 16th amendment to the constitution that reinstated parliament’s power to remove Supreme Court judges for misbehavior or incapacity unconstitutional. Later the State appealed against this judgment.
Yesterday Attorney General (AG) Mahbubey Alam stood for the State in the court while Advocate Monzill Murshid represented the writ petitioners.
The Attorney General said to the court that this was a very important case. There are some constitutional and legal matters in the case. So time is required for taking preparation for hearing. At this point he sought eight weeks time.
Advocate Monzill Murshid said there was no law in the country to dispose allegations raised against the Supreme Court judges. So the matter should be disposed immediately.
After hearing both sides, the SC bench granted only one week time to the State primarily. But the bench finally granted eight weeks time to the State after the Attorney General reclaimed it.
Besides, the SC bench announced 12 senior lawyers’ names as amicus curiae. The apex court asked the jurists to place their written argument on the matter.
The court said that total Judiciary is going through in an uncontrolled situation. There is no guidelines for lower courts’ judges. Even there is no legal way to take action against a judge of the Supreme Court. A gap is on.
The High Court verdict was delivered by the three-judge bench of Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury, Justice Quazi Reza-Ul Hoque, and Justice Md Ashraful Kamal after hearing a petition involving public interest.
The petition challenged the 16th amendment passed on September 22, 2014 by the Parliament in the absence of the opposition ignoring widespread protests from the Supreme Court Bar Association and the civil society.
Justice Quazi Reza-Ul Hoque agreed with the verdict pronounced by Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury while Justice Md Ashraful Kamal disagreed with the verdict.
The original constitution of 1972 had empowered Parliament to remove SC judges.
But the fourth amendment changed the constitution in January 1975 bestowed the authority on the President by abolishing the Parliament’s power.
During the first martial law regime, the then military ruler General Ziaur Rahman introduced the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) in 1978 by amending the constitution through a martial law proclamation.
In 2010, the SC scrapped the fifth constitutional amendment that validated all activities of the first martial law regime. It, however, condoned the introduction of the SJC.
The then Awami League government retained the SJC and incorporated the same provisions in the constitution through the 15th amendment in 2011.
But the AL changed its mind after returning to power winning the one-sided January 5 Parliamentary polls in 2014.
It moved to amend the constitution again and the House passed the 16th amendment to the constitution in September 2014.
On November 5 of that year, nine lawyers of the Supreme Court filed a writ petition with the High Court challenging the amendment. The HC issued rule after hearing the petition. After final hearing on the rule, a large HC bench declared 16th amendment illegal by majority.
