Gulam Rabbani :
After giving summary judgement in a case, judges inordinately delay release of full texts and certified copies of the full judgement in most cases in the higher judiciary. It thus causes a lot of sufferings for the litigants.
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in 2016 in a judgement ruled that judges must sign the judgments or orders in normal cases promptly and within six months in exceptional cases.
“A judge should promptly dispose of the business of the court, including
avoiding inordinate delay in delivering judgments/orders … a judgment shall be signed not later than six months of the date of delivery of judgment in exceptional cases,” it observed.
The apex court made the observation in its judgment, which on September 16 in 2015, upheld the dismissal of Syed Shahidur Rahman in 2004 from the post of Additional Judge of the High Court.
The then President Iajuddin Ahmed ordered his removal as recommended by the Supreme Judicial Council for receiving Tk 50,000 as bribe to grant bail to an accused in a case under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act.
The SC in the full judgment made 39 other observations regarding the code of conduct of judges.
A four-member bench of the apex court headed by the then Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha delivered the judgement.
According to the Article 111 of the Constitution, the direction in a case by the Appellate Division shall be binding on the High Court Division and the direction by either division of the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts subordinate to it.
Advocate Khandker Mahbub Hossain, former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, said that it was unfortunate to delay release of the full verdict despite the settlement of a case previously.
“The litigants suffer by this. The Appellate Division has given some directions in this regard. We hope, the judges will follow the directions, quickly publishing the verdicts for the sake of justice,” he said.
Advocate Khurshed Alam Khan, a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court, also said, “As per the Article 111 of the Constitution the directions given by the Appellate Division shall be binding on the High Court Division and all the courts subordinate to it.”
“In a judgement, the SC gave directions to release verdict within six months. But in many cases this direction is being ignored by many subordinate courts causing suffering to the litigants,” he said.
On April 3, 2016, the High Court ruled that after the death of a person, the money deposited in his/her bank accounts would go to the heirs instead of nominees. After making a rule absolute, the HC bench comprising Justice Naima Haider and Justice Khizir Ahmed Choudhury said that as per the law the nominee is a trustee and agent only. The deposited money of the deceased will have to be shared by the heirs as per the Mohammedan Law, the court added.
Though the High Court delivered the verdict one year and nine months ago, the certified copy of the full verdict does not come out yet. Advocate Sadekur Rahman, one of the counsels of the case, told The New Nation that they have not yet received the certified copy of the case. “It is not possible for someone to claim the result of judgement without receiving the certified copy,” said Sadekur.
Sources said, petitioners are deprived of the benefits of the judgement without the certified copy in hands.
After giving summary judgement in a case, judges inordinately delay release of full texts and certified copies of the full judgement in most cases in the higher judiciary. It thus causes a lot of sufferings for the litigants.
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in 2016 in a judgement ruled that judges must sign the judgments or orders in normal cases promptly and within six months in exceptional cases.
“A judge should promptly dispose of the business of the court, including
avoiding inordinate delay in delivering judgments/orders … a judgment shall be signed not later than six months of the date of delivery of judgment in exceptional cases,” it observed.
The apex court made the observation in its judgment, which on September 16 in 2015, upheld the dismissal of Syed Shahidur Rahman in 2004 from the post of Additional Judge of the High Court.
The then President Iajuddin Ahmed ordered his removal as recommended by the Supreme Judicial Council for receiving Tk 50,000 as bribe to grant bail to an accused in a case under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act.
The SC in the full judgment made 39 other observations regarding the code of conduct of judges.
A four-member bench of the apex court headed by the then Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha delivered the judgement.
According to the Article 111 of the Constitution, the direction in a case by the Appellate Division shall be binding on the High Court Division and the direction by either division of the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts subordinate to it.
Advocate Khandker Mahbub Hossain, former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, said that it was unfortunate to delay release of the full verdict despite the settlement of a case previously.
“The litigants suffer by this. The Appellate Division has given some directions in this regard. We hope, the judges will follow the directions, quickly publishing the verdicts for the sake of justice,” he said.
Advocate Khurshed Alam Khan, a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court, also said, “As per the Article 111 of the Constitution the directions given by the Appellate Division shall be binding on the High Court Division and all the courts subordinate to it.”
“In a judgement, the SC gave directions to release verdict within six months. But in many cases this direction is being ignored by many subordinate courts causing suffering to the litigants,” he said.
On April 3, 2016, the High Court ruled that after the death of a person, the money deposited in his/her bank accounts would go to the heirs instead of nominees. After making a rule absolute, the HC bench comprising Justice Naima Haider and Justice Khizir Ahmed Choudhury said that as per the law the nominee is a trustee and agent only. The deposited money of the deceased will have to be shared by the heirs as per the Mohammedan Law, the court added.
Though the High Court delivered the verdict one year and nine months ago, the certified copy of the full verdict does not come out yet. Advocate Sadekur Rahman, one of the counsels of the case, told The New Nation that they have not yet received the certified copy of the case. “It is not possible for someone to claim the result of judgement without receiving the certified copy,” said Sadekur.
Sources said, petitioners are deprived of the benefits of the judgement without the certified copy in hands.
