Special Correspondent: Law Minister Anisul Huq yesterday cautioned against “judicial anarchy” and said judicial activism should not cross its boundary. “We welcome such [public interest litigation] cases in the courts of the country and we very much also appreciate the interest the judiciary showed,” he said. “But we would like to at least state this, that though we encourage judicial activism, it should not cross the boundary and become judicial anarchy. That is where we would like caution to be maintained,” said the minister while speaking at a seminar in the capital’s Brac Centre Inn, as reported by a local daily.The Australian High Commission in Dhaka organised the seminar titled “Australia and Bangladesh: Sharing Experiences in Protection of Human Rights”. Anisul’s comments came two days after Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina criticised a High Court bench for ordering the arrest of three dismissed RAB officials over their alleged involvement in the seven-murder in Narayanganj.Asked if he was cautioning the judiciary because it had ordered the arrest of three RAB officials, the law minister said he had made the remark considering the overall aspects of the judiciary. A HC bench on May 11 ordered the government to immediately arrest the three RAB-11 officials, who were forced to retire for their alleged complicity in the abduction and killing of seven people in Narayanganj. In compliance with the order, law enforcers arrested them a week later.It is very difficult for us to define the term judicial anarchy-as far as it is possible to understand the term as stated by the minister and defined by him it could mean that the executive or the government is to decide the limits of the judicial power. This courage has been gathered after it became possible to remain in power through voterless election. The retired technocrats led government cannot be respectful to the existence of the democratic Constitution. Such a threat was faced once before in 1975 when one-party government was formed changing the democratic Constitution with power to sack the Chief Justice. The President was also not elected by the voters, he was deemed to be elected.So the trend is quite clear and the lawyers and judges have to face the growing threat to the justice system of the country. The independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by the Constitution and not a matter of generosity of the government. Let us take the case of the arrest of the three RAB officials, which was ordered by the High Court Bench. The order reflected poorly on the willingness of the executive branch-in this case the police, to appropriately carry out its duties and as such reflected the concerns of the Hon’ble High Court judges as part of the Supreme Court to ensure the due process of law as required by the Constitution. The government’s reactions make it clear that arrest of the three RAB officials was not to the liking of the government. There is no doubt that the government after destroying the politics of fair elections for transfer of power with help of the judiciary, now many people fear that the government wants to take advantage of the much discussed politicization of the judiciary, to make the judiciary subservient as the goal of any unelected government aspiring to be dictatorial. What is not strange is that the government that has created political anarchy is blaming the judiciary for judicial anarchy.
