Judicial Reform Commission pushes for independent judge appointments, faster trials

Its key proposals include establishing a separate judicial secretariat and decentralising the High Court

The Judicial Reform Commission has outlined key proposals in its draft report, including a separate judicial secretariat, an independent commission for judge appointments — excluding the chief justice — and decentralising the High Court with permanent benches in all administrative divisions.

Other key recommendations include setting up commercial courts at the district level, establishing civil and criminal courts at the Upazila level, and forming a permanent attorney service.

The commission is set to submit its final report on Wednesday, while the draft has already been sent to the Law and Justice Division for review.

The Constitution Reform Commission has also suggested changes regarding the judiciary in its report, which was submitted to Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus on Jan 15.

The demand for a separate judicial secretariat, transparency in judge appointments, and expedited trials has long been raised by lawyers and other stakeholders.

After the fall of the Awami League government, an eight-member Judicial Reform Commission was formed on Oct 3 as part of broader reform initiatives.

Commission head and retired Appellate Division judge Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman told bdnews24.com, “The commission has submitted a draft report to the law ministry, and the full report will be presented to the chief advisor on Wednesday.”

Although the convention is to appoint the most senior judge as chief justice, political considerations have sometimes led to deviations.

The commission’s draft recommendations proposed strictly following seniority in such appointments.

If implemented, this recommendation would remove the president's discretionary power in appointing the chief justice and eliminate executive influence.

The draft also suggested forming an independent and autonomous commission for the appointment of all other judges.

The report argued that the current system, where the chief justice unilaterally recommends appointments, should be replaced with a collective and representative selection process.

“To ensure a fair and transparent recruitment system valuing merit, integrity, and competence, a new independent commission should oversee Supreme Court appointments. The commission's recommendations should guide the selection of additional and permanent High Court judges, as well as Appellate Division judges,” the report said.

To reinforce transparency, competence, and integrity in the process, the draft suggested enacting a law to formalise appointment procedures and incorporating a new provision in the constitution.

To prevent conflicts of interest in Appellate Division appointments, the commission recommended excluding two High Court judges, the attorney general, the Supreme Court Bar Association president, and a Supreme Court lawyer from the selection body.

This would reduce the commission’s size to four members.

The commission also proposed establishing a Supreme Judicial Council to ensure judicial accountability and discipline.

With the 16th constitutional amendment already declared illegal by the Appellate Division, the Supreme Judicial Council has effectively resumed its functions.

SEPARATE SUPREME COURT SECRETARIAT

The draft report emphasised the need to establish a separate Supreme Court secretariat to ensure full judicial independence and complete separation from the executive branch.

It recommended enacting a distinct law or ordinance to formalise this arrangement.

On Oct 27, the Supreme Court administration sent a concept paper along with a proposal for a separate judicial secretariat to the law ministry.

DECENTRALISATION AND EXPANSION OF THE JUDICIARY

Regarding decentralisation and expansion, the draft said each permanent High Court bench should have a clearly defined jurisdiction regarding the cases it could accept.

However, the High Court Division’s full authority over trials, rulings, and directives must remain intact.

This means that while permanent benches will be set up across the country, the High Court’s jurisdiction will not be divided by geographical boundaries, preserving the unitary nature of the state.

As a result, litigants will benefit from filing cases at the nearest permanent bench.

The draft also underscored the need for proper infrastructure, including court buildings, support offices, suitable accommodation for judges and staff, and necessary budget allocations.

If activating all permanent benches simultaneously proves challenging, they could be established in divisional headquarters in phases based on priority.

UPAZILA-LEVEL COURTS

On the establishment of Upazila-level courts, the draft recommended identifying the Upazilas that require courts based on their geographical location, distance from the district headquarters, transport facilities, population density, and caseload.

It also called for reviewing the necessity of existing circuit courts and assessing whether their jurisdiction should be reorganised.

The draft proposed appointing judges at the senior assistant judge level to Upazila courts with both civil and criminal jurisdiction.

It also suggested extending legal aid services and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly mediation, to the Upazila level.

COMMERCIAL COURTS

The draft summary stressed the need for a dedicated law governing commercial courts to ensure the efficient resolution of business disputes.

It recommended necessary amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure and other relevant laws.

Arbitration laws were also proposed for revision to bring all arbitration matters — excluding international commercial arbitration — under the jurisdiction of commercial courts.

The draft suggested forming one or more designated High Court benches to handle issues arising from commercial courts.

It also proposed that once permanent High Court benches were established in divisional headquarters, similar commercial benches could be set up at that level to facilitate swift dispute resolution locally.

The draft strongly emphasised the urgency of eliminating corruption from the judiciary.

It recommended that every three years, the Supreme Court and subordinate court judges should submit their asset statements to the Supreme Court’s website, making them publicly accessible.

EXPANSION OF LEGAL AID SERVICES

The Judicial Reform Commission has recommended expanding the scope of the National Legal Aid Services Organisation to establish mediation as an effective dispute resolution mechanism alongside legal assistance.

To achieve this, the organisation should be upgraded to a full-fledged directorate.

The commission also suggested repealing the existing law and enacting a more relevant legal framework.

ESTABLISHMENT OF A PERMANENT, INDEPENDENT GOVT ATTORNEY SERVICE

The draft proposeed forming a permanent and independent government attorney service, replacing the current system of appointing law officers on a temporary basis based on political considerations.

It noted that similar attorney services exist in neighbouring countries and other parts of the world.

The draft recommended recognising the proposed attorney service as a pensionable government job.

It also called for enacting a law to define the service structure, operational procedures, and related matters, alongside incorporating a new article into the constitution to formalise the arrangement.

[Writing in English by Arshi Fatiha Quazi]