Judiciary's freedom has been maintained, Law Minister Huq says

Law Minister Anisul Huq has disagreed with Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha's comments calling for a repeal of Section 116 to the Constitution to ensure the judiciary's independence.

Senior Correspondentbdnews24.com
Published : 11 Dec 2016, 05:05 PM
Updated : 11 Dec 2016, 05:05 PM

The minister is of the view that the government is 'fully' following the constitutional sections relating to the independence of the judiciary.

At a programme on Saturday, Chief Justice Sinha reiterated his call for a repeal of Section 116, which allows the president, not the Supreme Court, to supervise promotions, transfers and disciplinary activities of subordinate court judges.

He also noted that the law minister had already rejected his previous appeal.

"I had said at a programme that a dual rule was running in the country. Our law minister instantly said there was no dual rule," said Justice Sinha.

Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha

Speaking about the inability of the judiciary to control the transfer, promotion and posting of judges, despite being independent, he said, "Sections 116 and 116 (A) are in conflict with the principles of the Constitution. I urge that these sections be removed from the holy book immediately.

"These have made it difficult for us to establish the rule of law," he added.

>> Section 116 says, "The control (including the power of posting, promotion and grant of leave) and discipline of persons employed in the judicial service and magistrates exercising judicial functions shall vest in the President and shall be exercised by him in consultation with the Supreme Court."

>> Section 116 (A) of the Constitution reads, "Subject to provisions of the Constitution, all persons employed in the judicial service and all magistrates shall be independent in the exercise of their judicial functions."

Speaking at an International Human Rights Day programme in Bangla Academy on Sunday, journalists asked for Law Minister Huq's reaction to Chief Justice Sinha's comments.

"I've gone through (the chief justice's speech) in newspapers. I think his full speech might not have been reported in the newspapers," he said.

The law minister said he had asked the Supreme Court for a copy of the speech if it had been a written one.

"I don't want to create any misunderstanding by making comments before getting the copy," he said.  

"That's why I won't make any comment, but I want to make it clear that the government completely follows these sections on the judiciary's freedom, what is said in Section 116 (A)," he added.

The minister claimed the executive branch had never interfered in the work of the judiciary.

"That culture is in the past now and broad changes have come in and that's why I think we, the executive branch or whatever branch you say, fully follow and honour and will continue to honour Section 116 (A)," he said. 

At another programme, he said the government was following Section 116 (A) 'word for word'.

"This government has worked hard for the judiciary's independence and has shown no parsimony in this regard," he said.

He added that the government, however, would not accept any work, or verdict against the spirit of the Liberation War.