Legal split over High Court ruling casts doubt over Supreme Court Secretariat future

The government has already scrapped the ordinance establishing the secretariat, even before the full High Court verdict was released

A deep legal divide has emerged over whether the newly established Supreme Court Secretariat can continue to function, after parliament scrapped the very ordinance that created it -- even as a High Court ruling called for its formation.

At the heart of the uncertainty lies a fundamental question: does the High Court’s directive take immediate effect, or must it await final adjudication by the Appellate Division?

Attorney General Md Ruhul Quddus Kazal argued the ruling is not yet operative.

“This judgment does not take effect immediately,” he said, noting that constitutional questions involved in the case require final settlement at the Appellate Division.

But senior legal experts sharply disagreed.

They contend that in the absence of any stay order, the High Court verdict remains binding, meaning the secretariat’s activities could legally continue despite the repeal of the ordinance.

The 185-page full verdict, delivered by a High Court bench of Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury, declared amendments to Article 116 of the Constitution invalid, restoring full control over lower court administration to the Supreme Court.

It also directed authorities to establish an independent secretariat within three months.

Yet, before the detailed verdict was published, the interim government had already promulgated an ordinance creating the secretariat -- subsequently nullified by parliament through a repeal bill.

The conflicting moves have created a legal grey zone.

The government plans to appeal the ruling, with the attorney general confirming that a certified copy has been sought.

The High Court has granted a certificate allowing the state to appeal directly, without prior leave.

Senior lawyer Sharif Bhuiyan described the ruling as a “historic achievement” for judicial independence, warning that dismantling the secretariat could contradict the court’s directive.

Another senior lawyer, Shishir Monir, was more blunt: “As long as there is no stay, the ruling must be followed. Saying otherwise amounts to a violation of the Constitution.”

He accused authorities of undermining judicial independence by repealing the ordinance and said the new law would be challenged in court.

Legal expert Manzill Murshid echoed that view, stressing that High Court judgments remain effective unless stayed.

The unfolding standoff now places the executive and judiciary on a potentially tense path, with the fate of the Supreme Court secretariat -- and broader questions of judicial independence -- hanging in the balance.