Through the 16th amendment to the constitution, the powers of the much-discussed Supreme Judicial Council were transferred to the members of parliament, thereby exerting influence of the legislative branch over the judiciary, especially the judges.
To counter this influence, on November 5, 2014, nine lawyers filed a writ petition in the High Court.
After nearly 9 years, 11 months and 15 days, the petitioners' long wait came to an on Sunday end as the Supreme Judicial Council returned within 87 minutes to handle the impeachment of judges.
At 9am, Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, along with five judges, entered the Appellate Division. At 9:24am, the hearing on item number 1, the review case of the 16th amendment, commenced.
During the hearing, Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman said: “Coming to hear this historic case today brings back old memories. My late senior, Barrister Ishtiaq Ahmed, said after hearing about the 44 grounds in this review application that when there are so many grounds in a review, it becomes groundless. Now, with supplementaries, there are 94 grounds in total. I will read one."
"You may focus on the main grounds. Have you added more grounds?" the chief justice said.
The attorney general replied in the affirmative. "Yes, we have included additional grounds, and I will present them." He then read parts of the case verdict from the paper book.
The chief justice asked how Article 96(1) of the constitution interfered with the 16th Amendment. “Are you planning to withdraw the review?"
The attorney general said no and proceeded to discuss a few grounds.
Presenting documents from 1972, he explained how judges had resigned over time, adding: "Judges can resign to the president. We have taken additional grounds regarding removal because the previous review made by the state had no valid grounds."
“Despite the Appellate Division’s verdict, the Supreme Judicial Council remained. But the previous law minister said he did not accept it, believing that impeachment should be conducted by parliament," Advocate Manzill Murshid noted.
The judges then held a discussion among themselves. At one point, the attorney general read the activities of the council aloud.
Meanwhile, Barrister Ruhul Quddus Kazal, representing the bar, requested permission to present his argument. He read out the operating part of the appeal verdict and referred to copies of the constitution from 2008 and 2016, saying: "The constitution is not for sale. But it is being sold, available to anyone. This is a deception against the nation. There are two footnotes under Article 96. Before the amendment, there were eight. Funny thing. The 16th Amendment transferred the power of removal to parliament with the intent of discrediting the judiciary. If the judgment is upheld, all such intentions will be fulfilled."
The court asked what should be done if limitations arose regarding impeachment in the future.
Kazal said: "You can add new provisions if needed. The code of conduct for judges has been brought into the council."
Advocate Manzill Murshid added: "The main target was how to remove judges. The question was whether it interfered with judicial independence. Fundamental human rights belong to everyone, and anyone can resign. If there’s any ambiguity after the attorney's submission, you may issue guidelines. You can also reject the review."
After a brief discussion among the judges, at 10:51am, they disposed of the review application with observations, reinstating sub-clauses 2-8 of Article 96 of the constitution.
One of the petitioners, lawyer Manzill Murshid, told this correspondent that the verdict had ended the long-standing ambiguity regarding the removal of judges.