The Chief Justice and four other Appellate Division judges left the courtroom on Tuesday following a tense exchange with Supreme Court Bar Association President Barrister AM Mahbub Uddin Khokon, bringing the day’s proceedings before the country’s highest court to an abrupt end.
The confrontation unfolded after Khokon asked Chief Justice Zubair Rahman Chowdhury to reconsider a Tk5 lakh fine imposed on a junior lawyer and subsequently raised concerns over fewer cases being heard by the Appellate Division and declining income for lawyers.
The Chief Justice interpreted part of the remarks as suggesting that lawyers’ income had fallen since he assumed office and described the statement as “absolutely tantamount to contempt of court,” according to Attorney General Ruhul Quddus Kazal.
At around 12:30pm, the Chief Justice said he would no longer take part in the day’s proceedings and left the courtroom.
The other four judges on the five-member bench also departed, and officials said the court did not sit again that day.
The bench also comprised Justice Md Rezaul Haque, Justice SM Emdadul Haque, Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Md Habibul Gani.
Dispute begins over Tk5 lakh fine
The episode stemmed from an order issued by the Appellate Division at around 9:15am.
The court fined writ petitioner Md Nur Alam and his lawyer Sufia Ahmed Tk5 lakh each, Tk10 lakh in total, after finding that information about previous litigation had been concealed from the court.
The money was ordered to be deposited with Dhaka Children’s Hospital within 30 days.
Khokon, who was not present when the order was delivered, later approached the bench and requested that the fine imposed on the junior lawyer be waived.
“Paying a Tk5 lakh cost is too much for a junior lawyer. It needs to be forgiven,” Khokon told reporters afterwards, saying he had made the request “in the interest of justice.”
Attorney General Kazal said the Chief Justice declined to alter the order, explaining that it had been passed after considering what the court regarded as “fraud and serious fraud” upon it.
Remarks over fewer cases trigger tension
The exchange then moved beyond the fine.
Khokon said he told the Chief Justice that fewer cases were now being heard in the Appellate Division, affecting lawyers’ earnings.
“After you became the Honorable Chief Justice, there are not many cases being heard in the Appellate Division. Lawyers’ income has decreased,” Khokon recalled telling the court.
He later said his point concerned the reduction in the number of Appellate Division benches rather than the Chief Justice personally.
According to Khokon, the Appellate Division previously had 11 judges and cases were regularly heard by three benches.
With cases now being heard by a single bench, he said, thousands remain pending and cases stayed by the Chamber Court can be difficult to bring up for hearing.
Attorney General Kazal said the Chief Justice asked Khokon whether he was suggesting that lawyers’ income had declined since he became Chief Justice.
When Khokon sought to explain his remarks, the Chief Justice described them as “absolutely tantamount to contempt of court,” Kazal said.
The Chief Justice subsequently announced that he would not continue the day’s proceedings and left the courtroom.
Khokon denied having an “argument” with the Chief Justice, saying he was speaking in his capacity as the elected representative of lawyers.
“I did not expect the Honorable Chief Justice to react so much,” he told reporters.
“As a representative of lawyers, I certainly have an obligation to appeal to him on behalf of the lawyers.”
Kazal described the episode as unfortunate, saying disagreements between judges and lawyers generally remain confined to court proceedings.
Case dates back to 2013
Additional Attorney General Aneek R Haque said the underlying litigation dates back to a dispute over the appointment of a marriage registrar.
Nur Alam filed a writ in 2016 challenging the appointment of Mizanur Rahman Murad as marriage registrar for Ward 65 under Jatrabari Police Station.
After losing in the High Court, the dispute reached the Appellate Division, which ordered cancellation of the temporary appointment and retention of the permanent appointee.
According to Haque, further writ petitions were filed in 2018, 2021 and 2026 without disclosing the earlier proceedings and Appellate Division order.
He said the issue was examined over three consecutive days, during which the court called for previous records and files before imposing Tk5 lakh each in costs on the petitioner and lawyer.
The courtroom exchange over that order, however, ultimately overshadowed the underlying case, ending with the full Appellate Division bench leaving and the Supreme Court’s highest judicial proceedings coming to an early halt for the day.