Separation of the judiciary

What we have suspected for a long time has finally come true. After all, there could be no valid reason for seeking more than 20 time extensions to prepare the necessary submissions. Nor is it credible that five years was not enough for the government to separate the judiciary from the executive. What has also been quite noticeable is that the government tried to convince us that all that it had been endeavouring to do was to live up to its promise.

But the government's handling of the matter tells quite a different story. To begin with, the law minister has claimed that separation of the judiciary from the executive was one of their election pledges but there was no specific timeframe for it! Having no timeframe means absence of commitment. Besides, an election pledge presupposes its fulfilment within the five-year term of a government.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Moreover, the rules framed by the government which the minister enthusiastically alludes to as a sign of government's seriousness about judicial independence do not conform to the 12-point directive of the Supreme Court (SC) on this issue. The point will be made clear by the gross deviations from the SC directives that marked the government's approach to the matter. The SC recommended that the judiciary remain with one ministry, but the government placed it under three ministries.

The government constituted the Judicial Service Commission and the Judicial Pay Commission with bureaucrats, by and large, thus retaining control over the two bodies. The SC also spelt out that promotion, transfer etc of the members of the lower judiciary would be dealt with by the SC itself, but the present government opted for continuation of the status quo by referring the matter to so-called 'proper authorities'.

So the task of freeing the judiciary from executive control practically stands handed over to the next government as the hearing of the case will not take place until November 12.

The government's intent could be questioned at almost every step. Its purpose seemed to be twofold: first, to create an impression that it was serious about separating the judiciary; and secondly, to make sure behind that façade that the idea did not materialise, at least during its tenure. Our question is, why should the government subject an issue of such grave national importance to its own political expediencies? Thus the government's performance could be termed 'contemptuous' of the Supreme Court.