During the first session of the parliament formed through the February 12 elections, over a hundred ordinances promulgated by the immediate past transitional government of Professor Muhammad Yunus were vetted into full acts.
However, several proposals failed to clear the legislative hurdle.
On March 12, 2026 -- the opening day of the 13th parliament's first session -- a total of 133 ordinances were tabled. A parliamentary special committee recommended letting certain proposals lapse or remain in abeyance for further stakeholder vetting.
By the close of the session, 97 ordinances were passed completely unchanged, 13 were adopted with amendments, and 23 were either dropped, lapsed, or shelved.
Of the ordinances that failed to secure parliamentary approval, the ones concerning judicial independence sparked the most intense public debate.
Citizens were understandably surprised by an apparent rollback of measures widely believed to have paved the way for an autonomous judiciary.
When the Yunus-led government promulgated the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance, 2025, late last year, public aspirations ran high.
The law was expected to cement institutional independence by placing administrative authority squarely in the hands of the Chief Justice.
Instead, the new government passed a repeal bill to re-evaluate this framework, triggering a sharp debate over the delayed implementation of a separate, autonomous administrative body.
Following the ordinance's promulgation in November 2025, then-Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed had inaugurated the Supreme Court Secretariat on December 11, hailing the moment as a historic institutional milestone.
The current Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Md Asaduzzaman -- who served as the Attorney General at the time -- attended that ceremony. He stood alongside Justice Refaat as the then chief justice formally unveiled the secretariat by removing the ceremonial cloth from the cornerstone at Supreme Court Administrative Building-4.
One can remember the Chief Justice declaring that day: "Our journey does not end here. The most important step ahead is to ensure the continuity and effective functioning of this secretariat."
Unfortunately, within four months that “continuity” comes to a halt.
Law Minister Md Asaduzzaman moved a bill in parliament to repeal that very ordinance. On April 9, the Jatiya Sangsad passed the Supreme Court Secretariat (Repeal) Bill, 2026, effectively dismantling the nascent independent secretariat for the country’s highest court.
This sudden reversal has fueled widespread concern over the future of judicial autonomy in Bangladesh. A fully independent judiciary serves as the primary mechanism for upholding the rule of law, protecting fundamental human rights, and maintaining a democratic system of checks and balances.
Article 22 of the Bangladesh Constitution reads: “The State shall ensure the separation of the judiciary from the executive organs of the State.”
While this Article mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive, achieving total institutional and functional independence remains an indispensable prerequisite for true democratic governance.
Seeking to calm public anxiety, the government has urged patience, promising a more refined framework following deeper stakeholder consultations.
In justifying the repeal, officials reasoned that further scrutiny is required to determine the ideal structure and necessity of a separate Supreme Court Secretariat.
Nevertheless, what prompted the government to completely abolish the freshly minted secretariat remains a mystery to many. As a direct consequence of the repeal, all posts specifically created for the secretariat have been scrapped.
Furthermore, the budgets, projects, and programs previously managed by the judiciary's independent arm have been transferred back to the executive's Law and Justice Division.
Without its own administrative secretariat, the judiciary remains heavily reliant on the Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs. This structural dependence severely limits institutional autonomy, tying day-to-day administrative functions to the executive branch. Essential operational needs -- such as budget allocations, financial allowances, and courtroom resources -- remain subject to executive approval.
Now that the interim-era ordinance has been repealed to make room for re-evaluation, the focus shifts to how swiftly the government rolls out this new consultation process.
For Bangladesh, this marks yet another delay in a long, exhausting journey that began with the historic Masdar Hossain judgment.
The 1999 Masdar Hossain case legally separated the subordinate judiciary from the executive branch in 2007. However, persistent systemic loopholes have consistently restricted absolute autonomy.
The ongoing push for a separate secretariat focuses entirely on detaching judicial administration from the Ministry of Law to secure true financial and administrative freedom.
An independent court acts as the ultimate guardian of the constitution, ensuring that the legislature and the executive do not exceed their constitutional bounds.
It provides a secure avenue for citizens to seek remedies against the abuse of state power. Courts cannot protect fundamental rights if they remain vulnerable to external pressures.
True independence prevents the powerful from dominating the weak, ensuring that legal disputes are decided strictly on their merits rather than through political or financial influence.
Reaz Ahmad is Editor, Dhaka Tribune.
