¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

Chief justice Syed Refaat Ahmed on Sunday emphasised that the judiciary’s demand for an independent Supreme Court secretariat should not be read as a bid to grab power, but rather as part of a long-standing struggle for institutional parity with the executive and the legislature.

‘The call for independence does not stem from hegemonic ambition,’ the chief justice said, adding, ‘It arises from the need to function without undue influence. The historical record does not support the dystopian notion of the judiciary unilaterally imposing its will on the state.’

He was speaking at an event commemorating the contribution of former attorney general and senior BNP lawyer AJ Mohammad Ali held at the Supreme Court Bar Association auditorium.

The event was chaired by former High Court judge Md Sharifuddin Chaklader and attended by former speaker Mohammad Jamiruddin Sircar, attorney general Md Asaduzzaman as the special guest and senior lawyer Zainul Abedin as the chief discussant.

AJ Mohammad Ali, a prominent figure in Bangladesh’s legal history, died on May 2, 2024, following a prolonged battle with cancer.

Speakers at the event recalled Mohammad Ali’s contributions to the legal profession, including his role in many landmark cases.

One such case was a writ petition challenging the cancellation of BNP chair Khaleda Zia’s nomination for a national election — where Justice Refaat, then a High Court judge, ruled in favour of allowing her to contest, though his junior colleague on the bench dissented.

In his address, the chief justice firmly stated that judicial independence was not same as isolation. ‘It is a pillar of balanced democracy, not a threat to it,’ he said, stressing that the judiciary must be structurally empowered to safeguard its constitutional role.

‘For more than 50 years, the judiciary has remained the least dominant of the three equal co-branches of the state,’ he noted.

Yet, at times of constitutional crisis and political instability it has often been the only fully functional organ of the state. This does not reflect dominance, but resilience, he said.

‘The real dangers in the past came from unholy alliances — when a dominant executive co-opted a weakened judiciary,’ he said.

‘Those episodes, often facilitated by questionable rulings, were constitutional misadventures — not assertions of judicial independence.’

The chief justice argued that the demand for a separate secretariat was aimed at creating the institutional framework necessary to ensure judicial autonomy — not to sever cooperation with other branches.

To support this point, he cited the UK Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 as a model.

The Act, he said, introduced meaningful reforms without dismantling inter-branch collaboration. It replaced the Lord Chancellor’s role as intermediary, created a separate Supreme Court, and formed the Judicial Appointments Commission — all while preserving structured communication between the judiciary, executive, and legislature.

‘An empowered judiciary can still maintain engagement with its counterparts in the government,’ the chief justice said, referring to routine meetings between the UK’s Lord Chief Justice and the Prime Minister, consultations with the Chancellor, and appearances before parliamentary committees.

He also pointed to accountability mechanisms like the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman and the Judicial Investigations Office, which enhance internal oversight without compromising independence.

‘Institutional separation does not mean a breakdown of communication,’ he concluded. ‘It ensures that the judiciary can perform its constitutional duties with confidence — being free from influence, but never being detached from the state.’