THE reallocation of power of the HC division bench of Justice Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman and Justice Shahidul Islam from writ to civil appeal hearing would have passed off as a routine affair in normal circumstances. But given the particular backdrop it was set against, public mind couldn't but be exercised over the jurisdictional change of the bench concerned.
It is this bench that had declared illegal the government sanction to try extortion case against detained former prime minister Sheikh Hasina under Emergency Power Rules (EPR) and quashed the trial proceedings. HC even granted bail to those convicted in the cases under EPR which was later to be reversed by the SC. It may not appear as mere coincidence that the order changing the jurisdiction came before the final hearing scheduled for March 19 on a writ petition challenging the validity of not holding national election in the '90-day stipulated time-period'.
There is, in fact, a pattern to the recent happenings. The HC bench gave orders and verdicts which when they went to the Appellate Division would be either stayed or cancelled. There is no second opinion that reallocation of jurisdiction between benches may turn out to be an imperative necessity in that certain judges could be more competent and better suited to cope with particular tasks than others. And the CJ is not only within his powers to effect it but is also the best judge of what needs to be done. The question however relates to the timing of it -- on the heels of a particular set of circumstances as cited above.
But this is not without a precedent. The same judge Nayeem Mominur Rahman had show-caused the four-party alliance government as to why the appointment of Justice MA Aziz as Chief Election Commissioner will not be declared illegal since he retained the position of justice of the Appellate Division. Justice Nayeem was divested of the writ power soon thereafter. Incidentally, when Justice Ruhul Amin became the Chief Justice, Justice Nayeem got back his writ hearing power.
We want the judiciary to enjoy the highest moral standing and impeccable credibility. For, we strongly believe that democracy, justice and people's rights are best served when the judiciary enjoys the highest public esteem.
The point we are trying to drive at is after the separation of the judiciary from the executive, the concept of independence of the judiciary has been placed on an exalted pedestal. At a time like this, question should not arise in the public mind that there could even be any perceived interference in the affairs of the highest judiciary.