A sad day for the highest judiciary

A large segment of the lawyers' community led by the Supreme Court Bar Council protested the oath taking of the new judges. They have even decided to boycott the court of one particular judge. All this go to signal a negative working atmosphere between the Bench and the Bar.

There is a history of politically stigmatised appointments to the highest judiciary as well as ignoring the recommendations of the Chief Justice, either partially or wholly by the government of the day. Certain obvious examples are cited: first, on coming to power, the four-party alliance did not confirm 15 additional judges appointed by the Awami League government even though most of them had been recommended by the CJ; secondly, in 2002 the CJ recommended confirmation of three judges originally appointed during the AL government but none of them were confirmed. Again, in the following year, out of the eight judges recommended by the CJ for confirmation, only two were confirmed. A similar trend was perceptible during the AL rule but to a lesser extent.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

All these go to prove that either total disregard is being shown for the need to consult with the CJ in regard to appointments and confirmations to the highest judiciary which he happens to head or a lip service is given to his recommendatory role. Government's consultation with him may not be constitutionally mandatory, but it certainly is a constitutional convention that can only be ignored to the peril of the independence of the judiciary and the undermining of its dignity and honour as the highest temple of justice.

The protesting lawyers have a valid point but it would have been far more forcefully articulated had the lawyer community been undivided.