NORTH SOUTH UNIVERSITY

Assignment

COURSE: Constitution of Law

COURSE CODE: Law 201
SECTION: 02

SUBMITTED BY

Sakib Ibna Raj (1911066611)

S.S.F.Muntasir Turna (1912289611)
Rakib Hasan Talukder (1921040011)
Jakaria Ashtaf Fahim (1921073011)
Adrita Ghosh Ritu (1921109011)
Shah Sartaz Rahman Sargil (1931925611)

SUBMITTED TO
Sharaban Tahura Zaman
Lecturer,
Department of Law,
North South University

SUBMISSION DATE: 05th, April, 2020.

Introduction
A modern state cannot be thought of without a Constitution. The whole legislative, executive and
judicial functions of the State are conducted and systematic by the Constitution.

The first constitution of Bangladesh, drafted in 1972, gave the Parliament the power to impeach the
judges of the Supreme Court (SC). Then, following the fourth amendment, the President of Bangladesh
was strong with this power. However, the Fifth Amendment legalized the formation of a Supreme
Judicial Council (SJC). And the SJC,Comprising of the Chief Justice and two next senior-most judges of the
Supreme Court, was empowered to impeach judges on the grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity.

The higher judiciary of Bangladesh is not totally free from the bridle of the executive while performing
its functions. This is clear from the fact that the President after earlier Exhortation with the Chief Justice
and on advice from the Prime Minister would appoint judges in the SC, as per articles 95(1) and 48(3) of
the Constitution respectively.

After their appointment, the question rise as to their occupancy of office and circumstances of
misbehavior due to which a justice can be impeached. However, the 16th amendment regain the power
of impeachment of SC judges back to the Parliament.

In accordance with the newly-inserted article 96(2) of the Constitution has regain the power to the
parliament to impeach the judges of the Supreme Court followed by an order of the President. Article
96(3) has authorize the parliament to measure the procedure by law.

The fundamental notion of impeachment is simple. Judges appointed under Article 94,95 of the BD.
Constitution “keep their Offices during good behavior. And they are impeached under Article 96.
Constitution for leading. President, Vice President and “all civil Officers of the State,” including federal
judges , may be removed for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Mischief.”

Object of study

The study has roofed the 16th amendment 2014, debates, reasonings and disputation regarding the
amendments have been discussed.

The main objectives of the study are to:

- Know and explore the sixteen amendment of the Bangladesh Constitution;

-Judgment of HCD and Appallete Division

-Focus on the impeachment of judges

- Understand the justness of sixteen amendment’

Methodology
Then we have gone some books shops to buying books relating to the given topics. However, the
information is not enough. Then we have started examining the World Wide Web and internet through
Google search engines to find out applicable materials about the topic.we have also found some other
study materials from some important books. After studying the all document,we made the research
paper on sixteen Amendment of Bangladesh Constitution . At the start of preparing this research paper
we have follow the instruction of my honorable teacher lecturer, Department of Law, IIUC. Then we
adopt the library of our university and asked for some allusion books relating to the given topic
amendment of Bangladesh Constitution and basic structure doctrine but no such books were available.

Shah Sartaz Rahman Sargil

I'd:1931925611

Significant of 16th amendment

Amending the constitution of Bangladesh is the process of making
changes to the nation's fundamental law or supreme law.
So the importance of amending is very significant for the state's people
and justice system. Because it can vary the law and its rights.
The minister of law ( on that time ruling party ), Anisul Huq spread
headed the amendment in 7 September, 2014. The 16th amendment
was passed on September 17, 2014. It follows the constitution of 1972,
article of 96. This amendment was about to give power to the
parliament to remove judges if allegations of incapability or misconduct
against them are proved .
After the declaration of 16th amendment, it created a dilemma,
debates among the justice system. Some were saying it can eliminate
the freedom practice of justice . Some were highly agreed with the
amendment because it could give the power for people's interest if any
judges behaviour could be harmful for the state.
So far , justice system is a neutral sector of law . If any ruling party
could take decision whom to eradicate from his duty it could be created
dilemma for practising freedom justice.

Adrita Ghosh Ritu

(1921109011)

Impeachment procedure
Constitutional History of Impeachment of judges

The first constitution of Bangladesh, drafted in 1972, gave the Parliament the power to accuse the
judges of the Supreme Court (SC). Then, following the fourth amendment, the President of Bangladesh
was entrusted with this power. However, the Fifth Amendment legalized the structure of a Supreme
Judicial Council (SJC). And the SJC, consisting of the Chief Justice and two next senior-most judges of the
Supreme Court, was authorized to impeach judges on the grounds of proven misconduct or
unsuitability.

16th Amendment
Bangladesh Act No XIII of 2014 amended the Constitution of Bangladesh, authorizing Parliament to
impeach Supreme Court judges. Part VI, chapter one, article 96, of the Bangladesh Constitution, which
hold provisions on the tenure of office of the Supreme Court judges, now states:

(1) Subject to the other logistics of this article, a Judge shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-
seven years.

(2) A Judge shall not be dismissed from his office except by an order of the President passed pursuant to
a re-answer of Parliament patronaged by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of
members of Parliament, on the ground of proved misconduct or unsuitability.

(3) Parliament may by law regulate the procedure in relation to a re-answer under clause (2) and for
inquiry and proof of the misconduct or unsuitability of a Judge.

(4) A Judge may relinquish his office by writing under his hand addressed to the president.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs had
offered the enactment, now accepted as law, that suggested substitution of sections 2 through 8 of
article 96 with the sections 2, 3, and 4. The draft amendment was passed with a 327-0 vote, based on
the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee.

Difference between 5th and 16th

Before the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, articles 96 (2) and (3) of the Bangladesh Constitution
under Part VI included a provision on impeachment carried out by the Supreme Judicial Council instead
of the Parliament. It stated:

(2) A judge shall not be dismiss from office except in similar with the following provisions of this article.

(3) There shall be a Supreme Judicial Council, in this article mentioned to as the Council, which shall
consist of the Chief Justice of Bangladesh, and two next senior judges.

Under 16th amendment, by an Act of Parliament there shall be an investigating or inquiring authority
which is quite distinct and separate from the Legislature or the Executive organ of the State.

An accused Judge will be fully entitled to defend himself during investigation or inquiry, as the case may
be.

That being so, he will not undergo any prejudice on any count.

Under 5th amendment, there shall be a judicial council, which shall consist of chief justice & two next
senior judge.

The council shall determine the code of conduct to be observed by the judges.

The council shall inquire into the capacity or conduct of the judges.

Upon any actuality received from council the president shall remove the judges on the ground of
misconduct, physical or mental incapacity.

The independent of judiciary specially the constitutional status and purity of the Supreme Court was
restored by 5th amendment. Though the insalubrious provision introduced by the 4th amendment
relating to appointment of judges were left untouched, the provisions for security of occupancy which is
the first and the most important proviso of independence of judiciary was restored by providing a
healthy device of Supreme Judicial Council. Moreover, in respect of control including the power of
posting, promotion and grant of leave and discipline of the subordinate judges and magistrates which
was entrusted absolutely in the president under the 4th amendment, it was provided that the president
should exercise that control in consultation with the Supreme Court. Thus constitutional aspect of
independence of both higher and lower judiciary was restored
Jakaria Ashtaf Fahim

(1921073011)

Writ against 16th amendment

WHILE everyone is talking about the vacuum in the constitution of Bangladesh created
after the decision of the Appellate Division made in the case of 16th amendment to
the constitution with regards to the procedure that would be suitable to impeach a
Supreme Court judge, let us look forward and find the ways out from this cloud of
doubt. For this, we may have to look back at the case of Anwar Hossain v Bangladesh,
popularly known as the 8th amendment case, which is a historic judgment in the
constitutional history of Bangladesh.

An application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of

Bangladesh was made against 16th amendment by Advocate Asaduzzaman Siddiqui,
Masdar Hossain and other Petitioners, Versus Bangladesh represented by the Cabinet
Secretary, Cabinet Division.

Grounds of Writ against 16th amendment

1. The background of the initiative to amend the relevant provisions relating to the
removal of the Judges of the Apex Court emanated from some incidents which took
place in the recent past. 1. one of them is that our Parliament passed a law of
Contempt of Court in 2013, the High Court Division declared the said law of Contempt
of Court of 2013 void and ultra vires the Constitution.

2. The Sixteenth Amendment is ultra vires the Constitution as it is in direct conflict with
and contradictory to the spirit of the Preamble of the Constitution.

3. Independence of the Judiciary is one of the basic features of the Constitution as

expounded in Anwar Hossain Chowdhury and others … Vs … Bangladesh and others
( popularly known as Eighth Amendment Case ) [ 1989 BLD (SPL) 1 ] which has been
reiterated and reaffirmed in Masdar Hossain’s Case [ 52 DLR (AD) 82 ]. The primary
objective of the Sixteenth Amendment is to destroy the principle of independence of the
Judiciary and to render the Judiciary impotent and ineffective.
4. It is violative of Article 7B of the Constitution as no provisions relating to the basic
structures of the Constitution shall be amendable by way of insertion , modification,
substitution, repeal or otherwise.

5. The Sixteenth Amendment blatantly destroys the spirit and essence of the provisions
of Article 22 of the Constitution and thereby blurs the separation of powers among the
different organs of the State and clearly establishes the domination of the Executive
through the Parliament over the Judiciary which will create a great imbalance within the
constitutional bodies and thereby make the Judiciary a mockery and a toothless and
tearful silent witness.

6. The Sixteenth Amendment is also ultra vires the Constitution as by dint of Article 70 ,
the Members of Parliament can not express their independent views / opinions against
their partyline and as a natural corollary thereto , the removal of the Judges of the
Apex Court of Bangladesh will be prejudiced by its direct implication.

7. The Sixteenth Amendment is ultra vires the Constitution as it has undermined the
authority and dignity of the Apex Court because of the fact that the validity of the
proceedings in the Parliament can not be questioned in any Court by virtue of Article
78 of the Constitution. As such the Judiciary will be at the mercy of the Executive
through the Legislature and it will not be able to safeguard itself.

8. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh being the guardian of the Constitution must not
allow any inroad upon the Constitution ; but the Sixteenth Amendment is an inroad
upon the independence of the guardian of the Constitution.

9. In the Fifth Amendment Case , the High Court Division declared the Constitution ( Fifth
Amendment ) Act , 1979 illegal and void abinitio subject to certain condonations. The
Appellate Division in the Fifth Amendment Case endorsed those condonations with some
modifications . As per the judgment of the Appellate Division passed in the Fifth
Amendment Case , the provisions relating to the Supreme Judicial Council were kept
intact in the Constitution of Bangladesh.

So the sixteen amendment violate the verdict of appellant division by giving the power
of removal of judges of the supreme court , to the parliament.

10. In the Supplementary Affidavit dated 27 . 05 . 2015 , it has been mentioned by the
petitioners that the Sixteenth Amendment is inconsistent with and violative of Article
147 (2) of the Constitution which provides that the remuneration , privileges and other
terms and conditions of service of a person holding or acting in any office to which this
Article applies shall not be varied to the disadvantage of any such person during his
term of office . As per Article 147 (4) of the Constitution , this Article ( Article 147 )
applies , amongst others , to the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court . The Sixteenth
Amendment has undoubtedly varied the removal mechanism of the sitting Judges of the
Supreme Court of Bangladesh for their misconduct or incapacity to their disadvantage .
As such the Sixteenth Amendment is illegal and void .

11. The Sixteenth Amendment will also directly affect the Election Commissioners ,
Comptroller and Auditor - General , Members of the Public Service Commission as well as
Members of the Anti - Corruption Commission . By virtue of this Amendment , they will
be removed in like manner as a Judge of the Supreme Court according to Articles 118
(5) , 129 (2) and 139 (2) of the Constitution of Bangladesh and Section 10 (3) of the Anti
- Corruption Commission Act , 2004 respectively . The independence of the Commissioners
of the Anti - Corruption Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor - General of
Bangladesh will be in jeopardy inasmuch as they will not be able to act impartially and
effectively against the misdeeds of the concerned Members of Parliament who are their
real bosses.

Sakib Ibna Raj

(1911066611)

Judgment Of HCD And Appellate

Division On 16th Amendment Case
16th amendment of the constitution was passed by the parliament on 17-08-2014 which gave power
to the National Parliament to get rid of judges if allegations of incapability or misconduct against them
are proved. Appellate Division by its historic judgment on July 3rd 2017 upheld the judgment of the
HCD dated 05.05.2016 striking down the 16th Amendment of the Constitution as unconstitutional. By
16th Amendment of the Constitution, Parliament assumed the removal power of the judges of the
Supreme Court which was earlier restricted with by the Supreme Judicial Council.

Judgment of HCD
The high court division seeks opinions from the subsequent
person as Amici Curiae , Dr. Kamal Hossain, Senior Advocate, Mr. M. Amir-ul Islam, Senior Advocate,
Mr. Rokanuddin Mahmud, Senior Advocate and Mr. Ajmalul Hossain QC, Senior Advocate.
The writ petition was heard on 28th may, 18th june,2nd, 30th july, 6th, 19th august, 20th
september,2nd 3rd,9th october , 11th november.2015, 01.12.2015, 02.02.2016, 03.02.2016, 04.02.2016,
23.02.2016, 03.03.2016 and 10.03.2016.
Judgment was given by the HCD on 05.05.2016.
Moynul islam .j said that, "I haven't hesitation in holding that the 16th Amendment maybe a colourable
legislation and is violation of separation of powers among the 3(three) a part of the State, namely, the
Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary and also independence of the Judiciary as guaranteed by
Articles 94(4) and 147(2), two basic structures of the Constitution and there is also the same are also hit
by Article 7B of the Bangladesh Constitution. So he finds merit within the Rule. The Rule, therefore,
succeeds. Accordingly, the Rule is formed absolute with none order as on costs".

However, as per Article 103(2)(a) of the Constitution, we certify that the case involves a considerable
question of law as on the interpretation of the Constitution.
QUAZI REZA-UL HOQUE J: & MD. ASHRAFUL KAMAL, J: are agreed with the judgment.

Judgment of Appellate Division

An Order was lapsed by appellate division. Since nearly one wrote separate judgments expressing their
separate opinions, we unanimously dismisses the appeal, expunge the remarks made by the High Court
Division of the Bangladesh as quoted within the judgment of learned by the Chief Justice and also
restore clause (2) (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of article 96 and also approve the Code of Conduct formulated
within the main.
The 799-page decision has been written by the chief justice, Sk. Sinha, and also the six judges of the
Appellate Division - Md Abdul Wahhab Miah, Nazmun Ara Sultana, Syed Mahmud Hossain, Muhammad
Imman Ali, Hasan Foez Siddique, and Mirza Hussain Haider have agreed with the views of the chief
justice.
The full bench of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court unanimously saind that the 16th
amendment of the Constitution as illegal, affirming the judgment the earlier decision of the High Court
Division. By this trailblazing verdict, the power to impeachment of a Judge of either division of the
Supreme Court remained in the hands of the President, on a report of inquiry of the Supreme Judicial
Council as enshrined in art. 96 of the Constitution.
This decision was supported the doctrine of separation of powers among the three organs of the state
namely Legislature, Executive and the Judiciary. Our Constitution is largely founded upon the doctrine of
Separation of Power, which was projected to entire world by the French Philosopher Montesquieu who,
through his theory, had us to believe that assimilation of all three types of power in one authority,
would ensue tyranny. This separation could be a prerequisite to confirm independence of higher
judiciary as enshrined in art. 95 of the Constitution. Moreover, separation of judiciary could be a
provision of our Constitution under art. 22, as such, part of the ‘Basic Structure’ of the Constitution too
under art. 7B. Consequently, the Parliament, although got power to amend any provision of the
Constitution under art. 142, but it cannot make any amendment which withers away any provision of
basic structure under art. 7B.
People from different corners of the legal arena including intellectuals, practitioners, teachers, students
mostly welcomed the decision. The Government, however, became outstandingly astonished to, and
seriously dissatisfied, with the decision. The key argument placed by the Govt. was centered over the
‘Impeachment-Power’, which was vested on the Parliament under the first Constitution of 1972, and
subsequently forwarded to the President through the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution in 1975.

The verdict say about Bangladesh's history:

If we wish to really live up to the dream of Sonar Bangla as advocated by our Father of the state, we
must keep ourselves free from this suicidal mindset and addiction to 'I alone', that just one person or
one man did all this,” The Chief Justice S.K Sinha say in his observation on the decision.
He also remarked on the state of politics, jurisprudence, The Election Commission also corruption and
independence of the judiciary.
" Now power, not merit, tends to control all public institutions of the country. It is a real understatement
that while unflinching determination and indomitable spirit enabled us to free a Nation from the
clutches of a military power, we have been measurably defeated by ourselves in this very free country,"
it said.
Criticising the last two jurisprudence regimes, the court observed: “ After independence, unholy
alliances of power-mongers reduced this country to a country republic twice. They bluffed and
hoodwinked the people to legitimise their exercise against law of power.”

Pending Review
Law minister of Bangladesh Anisul Huq said the government is making preparations to file a review
petition against the 16th amendment verdict that scrapped parliament’s power to impichment of judges
on the grounds of misconduct and incapacity.

The verdict is being scrutinised. The govt. is getting prepared to file of the review petition,” said Anisul.
He went on to mention, “ We are not agree with the verdict, but we are respectful of the verdict.”

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on 3 July this year scrapped the 16th amendment and
restored the Supreme Judicial Council also because the full text of the verdict was released on 1st
August, stirring a huge debates over which of the state main part is sovereign is it the legislature or the
judiciary.

The court said: “ The chief justice and the other judges are constitutional functionaries (office
holder). They aren't the servants of anyone and haven't master whatsoever.There is no master servant
relationship the least bit between them and anybody else,least of all other branches of the state ”.

The Judgment has upheld the decision of the High Court that gives that the 16th amendment of the
constitution is illegal, in response to this, the current government has expressed its concern that the
constitutional provisions annulled by the parliament don't seem to be reinstated automatically and
therefore court can't be a replacement for the parliament.

Assigned By
Rakib Hasan Talukder

ID: 1921040011
 Opinion of Legal expert

The 16th amendment controversy is now seriously acute at several levels. It is a

conflict between the Judiciary and the Legislature as its powers to remove Judge
have taken away. Many legal experts have given several opinions about the sixteenth
amendment.

Opinion of Dr. Kamal Hossain : Dr. Kamal Hossain, the Chairman of the
Bangladesh constitution drafting committee and acted in sixteenth amendment case
as amicus curia. His opinion is that the sixteenth amendment is ultra virus and in
the constitution his opinion is based on the following grounds:

The independence of the Judiciary is the foundation stone of the constitution as

contemplated by Article-22 . It is one of the Fundamental Principles of State Policy
and the significance of the independent Judiciary . Free from the interference of the
other 2 (two) organs of the State , has been emphasized in Article – 94 (4) , 116A and
147 of the constitution and in the Eighth Amendment case . It has been held that
Democracy , Judiciary , Rule of Law , Fundamental Right etc. are basic structures of
the constitution.

Although the independence of the Judiciary is an essential element of the rule of

law , yet by enacting the Sixteenth Amendment , the Parliament is prone to exercise
control over the Judiciary by way of preserving a right to take decisions on the
question of removal of the Judges of the Supreme Court. The Judge cannot perform
their solemon duties unless their independence is guaranteed and protected by
securing their tenure as underlined in the United Nation’s instrument on Basic
Principles on the independence of the Judiciary , the formal requirement of
independence of the Judge include , amongst others , their security of tenure and
suitable condition of service.

As the Sixteenth Amendment is violation of independence of the Judiciary and

Separation of powers , the same is in conflict with Article - 7B of the constitution and
by that reason , it is liable to be struck down.

Opinion of Mr. Rokanuddin Mahmud: Mr. Rokanuddin Mahmud , learned

Amicus Curiae on the sixteenth amendment case . His opinion about the sixteenth
amendment case is given below :
 He does not find fault with the sixteenth Amendment , but what is of paramount
importance is that the law to be framed pursuant to the amended Article – 96 (3) of
the constitution must be gone into before he makes any submission on the paint and
unless that law is formed by the Parliament , it is difficult to say at this stage as to
whether the Sixteenth Amendment has impaired the independence of the Judiciary or
not . The Judges of the Supreme Court should be tried by their peers in case of
misbehavior or incapacity and that will guarantee the independence of the higher
Judiciary to the fullest extent and in this respect , the Supreme Judicial Council as
introduced in Article - 96 by the fifteenth Amendment of the constitution is the best
mechanism.

Opinion of Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan: . Senior lawyer Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan ,

Amicus Curiae on the sixteenth amendment case . His opinion about the sixteenth
amendment case is given below :

He said the authority of forming the Supreme Judicial Council should be in the hands
of the Chief Justice . The balance of power will be lost if it is given to the
government .

Opinion of Mr. M. Amir- ul islam: Mr. M. Amir - ul Islam , learned Amicus

Curia , he was one of the Members of the Constitution Drafting Committee in the
past – liberation period in 1972 . According to him the sixteenth amendment is
unconstitutional and illegal and violation of the separation of power . He showed
many arguments to support his opinion , these are :

There was no other option for the Members of the Drafting Committee but to assign
the job of removal of the Supreme Court Judges to the Parliament and that being so ,
the Parliament was entrusted there with by the original constitution of 1972 .

Separation of Powers and independence of the judiciary go hand in hand and the
doctrine of separation of powers must be adhered to in making the Judiciary
completely independent of the influence of the Executive or the Legislature and the
16th Amendment , it goes without saying , is blow to the independence of the
Judiciary .

The removal procedure of the Judges of the Supreme Court is a part of their
appointment process but unfortunately in Bangladesh , the appointment process of
the Judges of the Supreme Court is not transparent , open and public and even after
45 years of our independence , Article – 95 (2) (c) of the constitution relating to the
other qualification for appointment of a Judge of the Supreme Court has not seen the
light of the day to the great detriment of Public interest.
 The force of law is not logic , but experience and our experience shows that about
70% of the Members of Parliament in Bangladesh are now a - days businessman and
litigants and for the sake of independence of the Judiciary , they should not be
involved in the process of removal of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh
on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity.

The Principles of independence of the Judiciary demand that a Judge should be tried
by his peers for his misbehavior / misconduct or incapacity and that will best
guarantee his independence in the discharge of his Judicial Functions .

Opinion of Ajmalul Hossain : Barrister Ajmalul Hossain learned Amicus Curiae

on the 16th amendment case. His opinion about the sixteenth amendment case is
given below :

He said the 16th amendment is legal . The court should not have authority to scrap
it . The parliament will decide on the removal . The Supreme Court will legalise the
system of removing the judges after parliament takes decision to remove anyone . By
the 16th Amendment , the original constitution has been restored . This amendment
is legally valid .

Conclusion: There are some issues in constitutional law which cannot be answered
in one word , for example , what would be the meaning of “ gross misconduct ” under
article 52 and 96 . The concept of ‘ Independence of Judiciary ’ is one cannot define
how much independence is necessary for ensuring justice . But the bottom level is
certain that there shouldn’t be assimilation or transgression , instead there should be
check and balance . The Judiciary was generally seen as the most important of
powers , independent and unchecked , and also was considered dangerous .

If it is accepted that the provision of original Constitution should prevail the 16th
Amendment is good . But according to the opinion of Amicus Curies and Judges of
the verdict , it’ll always create political influences on judges disturbing judicial
independence and put a constant fear on them too . Therefore , vesting of such
power in the Parliament , as in India and England , will not be justifiable , because
the situations of democracy of Bangladesh and those countries are different .

It may be argued that the Judiciary , being an organ of the State , is independent
and separate theoretically but not practically . Because , the Judiciary , being
subordinate to the President , is subordinate to the decision of the Prime Minister
too , who is also the chief of the rulling political party . Respecting the decision of
the Supreme Court in 16th amendment case , I must say that the verdict has been a
cherished dream for the persons of the legal arena specifically and for the people
generally . However , the verdict has created a doctrinal or theoretical hegemony
regarding the application of original Constitution for ascertaining the Basic Structure .
The intellectual will further consider that ‘ Is there any scope to keep the original
Constitution remain applicable? ’ The most convenient way will be to keep both
simultaneously for both of ‘ independence ’ and ‘ check & balance ’ are necessary.
Therefore , the Parliament and Supreme Judicial Council can act concurrently in
association of each other , and there may be two enactments for detailed provisions
namely ‘ The Judges (Appointment) Act, and ‘The Judges (Inquiry) Act ’ . Otherwise ,
this verdict will be a precedent for abrogating any provision of the original
Constitution in future days through exercising political mollified and terming as ‘
historical mistake ’ .

Assigned by

S.S.F.Muntasir Turna

1912289611