When he was a High Court judge in 2012, he had accused then Speaker Abdul Hamid, now the President, of committing an offence tantamount to sedition. He accused Hamid for making a comment in the House on a High Court order. He also said the Speaker was completely ignorant of the apex court and the constitution.

Being an Appellate Division judge, he has now accused Chief Justice SK Sinha of committing "gross misconduct." He has sent a letter to President Abdul Hamid seeking the CJ's impeachment. He has done this against the CJ out of a personal issue between them. 

Both incidents are without any precedents. In the first instance, he brought charges against the Speaker and in the second, against the chief justice, heads of two of the three organs of the State. By doing so he has managed to set a bizarre precedent in the history of our judiciary.

This judge is none other than Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik.

After the first incident, the MPs reacted sharply and blasted Justice Manik. In an unscheduled discussion in the parliament on June 5, 2012, they accused him of violating the constitution for making "derogatory remarks" about the Speaker.

Participating in the discussion, senior Awami League lawmaker Tofail Ahmed, now commerce minister, said, "I was surprised to see how Justice Manik spoke against the Speaker and accused him of sedition. We are at a loss for words to censure him."

The same judge, Tofail, added, had once punished a simple traffic police officer for failing to salute him on the road. 

Workers Party MP Rashed Khan Menon said Justice Manik's remarks were a clear violation of Article 78 of the constitution. "We can in no way accept such behaviour."

During the discussion treasury bench MPs chanted "shame" "shame" when their fellow lawmakers were blasting the judge over his remarks about the Speaker.

On June 18, then Speaker Abdul Hamid came up with a ruling on the discussion saying Justice Manik had violated the constitution by making derogatory remarks about the parliament and the Speaker.

"I doubt if a conscientious person can make remarks like the ones an honourable High Court judge [Justice Manik] has made about parliament and me by violating Article 78 (1) of the constitution," Hamid said.

Article 78 (1) of the constitution says the validity of the proceedings in parliament shall not be questioned in any court.

Putting the onus on the chief justice, the Speaker said, "We will support whatever steps the chief justice may take with regard to such behaviour by a court. Hopefully, that will prevent a recurrence of such incidents."

He added, "…I want to humbly say that improper behaviour of one judge cannot hurt the existing amicable relations among the three organs of the state. Being representatives of 16 crore people, we cannot evaluate the entire judiciary on the basis of one judge's conduct."

The then chief justice did not take any action as expected by the Speaker. Instead Justice Manik was appointed a judge to the Appellate Division next year. And it was Speaker Hamid who, as the acting president following the death of Zillur Rahman, appointed him to the Appellate Division in March 2013.

Now reaching the end of his career, Justice Manik has accused the CJ of being "biased" against him by not including him in any Bench in recent weeks and asking him to complete writing the pending judgements before taking retirement benefits. He goes into retirement on October 1. 

The whole situation around Justice Manik's retirement becomes complicated as the office of the CJ was apprehensive that he might leave the country for UK without completing the pending judgements he is supposed to finish writing even after his retirement.

This administrative dispute between the CJ and Justice Manik should have been resolved within the walls of the apex court.

But Justice Manik brought it out in public. His action has irked many legal experts who have accused him of undermining the high office of the chief justice and the image and dignity of the higher judiciary.

Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Khandaker Mahbub Hossain on Monday commented that Justice Manik's action was not decent.

Asked, former law minister Abdul Matin Khasru on Tuesday termed it 'indecent and undesirable.'

In his views Justice Manik's letter to the president undermined the image of the higher judiciary.

Justice Manik, however, seems not to have taken the right path by appealing to the president for the removal of the chief justice.

After the constitution's 16th amendment in 2014, the parliament now has the power to remove the chief justice and any other judges of the Supreme Court on grounds of misconduct or inability to discharge duties.

Before this amendment, the president had the authority to send any allegation against any Supreme Court judge to the then Supreme Judicial Council for investigation and to report to him.

What can the president now do with Justice Manik's letter? What will happen if the president sends Justice Manik's letter to the parliament?

The parliament got back the power to remove SC judges. But it cannot do anything because they did not enact a law specifying the procedure for investigation into the allegation against a judge and for removal of the judge.

Until the law is made, the parliament cannot do anything. Justice Manik's letter, if it is referred to the parliament by the President, will then remain unaddressed. 

Justice Manik is not unaware of this situation. Yet, he has sent the letter to the President. More interestingly his letter was made available to the media before it reached Bangabhaban, the office-cum residence of the president.

His action seems to be aimed at tarnishing the high office of the chief justice by casting doubt on his impartiality to lead the judiciary. If the office of the chief justice is undermined, it is a severe blow to the entire judiciary. This will cause an erosion of people's confidence in the judiciary. None should be allowed to hurt the dignity of the judiciary in any adventure.