HC verdict on empowering parliament on May 5

The High Court yesterday set May 5 for delivering its judgement on a writ petition that challenged the legality of the 16th constitutional amendment empowering parliament to impeach Supreme Court judges for incapacity or misconduct.

A special HC bench of Justice Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury, Justice Quazi Reza-Ul Hoque and Justice Md Ashraful Kamal passed the order concluding the hearing on the plea.

The House led by the Awami League on September 17, 2014 unanimously passed the 16th amendment and regained the power available in the 1972 constitution to impeach judges.

Earlier, SC judges were removed by the president following the recommendation by the Supreme Judicial Council, a body formed by the chief justice and two senior most Appellate Division judges.

On November 5, 2014, nine SC lawyers, including Asaduzzaman Siddique, Aklas Uddin Bhuiyan and Sarwar Ahad Chowdhury, filed the writ petition, saying the amendment might curb the independence of the judiciary.

The petitioners said the amendment might have been motivated from a “malafide” intention and the judges might feel at risk before passing an order against a lawmaker.

Four days later, the HC issued a rule upon the government asking it why the amendment should not be declared unconstitutional and annulled.

The three-member HC bench started hearing on the rule on May 21 last year and heard expert opinions from five amici curiae (friends of court), including eminent jurist Dr Kamal Hossain, on the issue. The four other amici curiae are Mahmudul Islam, now deceased, M Amir-Ul Islam, Rokanuddin Mahmud, and Ajmalul Hossain QC.

Dr Kamal, a framer of the constitution, told the HC in August last year the 16th amendment that re-empowered parliament to impeach SC judges affects the independence of the judiciary.

During yesterday's hearing, Attorney General Mahbubey Alam placed arguments before the HC, opposing the writ petition.

He said the 15th and 16th amendments aimed at cancelling the constitutional changes that were made by the martial law proclamations and restoring the original constitution of 1972.

The attorney general also said a law would be formulated determining the procedure for the removal of SC judges, and such writ petitions (challenging the amendment) was not acceptable before its formulation.

On the other hand, petitioners' lawyer Manzill Murshid said the 16th amendment changed the “basic structure of the constitution”.