Bangladesh Judicial Service Association on Wednesday withdrew Supreme Court senior lawyers Dr Kamal Hossain and M Amirul Islam from their power to conduct Masdar Hossain case, popularly known as the case of separating the judiciary from the executives.
The association, in a statement, sent to the media Wednesday night, said that the association decided to withdraw the power vested in the two senior lawyers by the association to conduct the case.
The association president, SM Quddus Zaman, also Dhaka districts and sessions’ judge, and acting secretary general Bikash Kumar Saha, also joint secretary (administration) of law, justice and parliament affairs secretary, signed the statement.
It says that the decision was made in presence of all the executive committee members of the association and all the judges working in Dhaka.
The statement said that the association was dissatisfied with Amirul Islam’s submission against the interests of lower court judges before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
It further says that the association thinks that the six senior lawyers of the Supreme Court who gave a statement on Masdar Hossain case are doing politics with the case.
The association requested the senior lawyers not to give any negative statement regarding Masdar Hossain case as the SC accepted the lower court judges conduct rules and there was no dissatisfaction in this regard.
On January 1, on the eve of Supreme Court’s initiative to observe January 2 as Supreme Court Day for the first time, six jurists — Dr Kamal Hossain, Rafique-Ul Huq, M Amirul Islam, Mainul Hosein, AF Hassan Ariff and Fida M Kamal — in a joint statement called for creating an environment in which the judiciary would be free from the dominance and interference of the executive.
In the statement, they had said that the day was going to be observed at a time when the post of the chief justice, the highest guardian of judiciary, remained vacant.
Recalling the landmark decision delivered by the apex court in the Masder Hossain case, the lawyers said that they found that three rules (disciplinary rules), relating of the subordinate court, were framed in violation of the constitution framed in 1972.
‘It is a matter of grave concerns,’ said the lawyers, adding, ‘It is the constitutional obligation for the apex court to uphold independence of the judiciary enshrined in the constitution.’