The High Court on Tuesday ordered the government to establish a separate secretariat at the Supreme Court within three months.
The court also declared unconstitutional the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution that had shifted disciplinary control over subordinate court judges from the Supreme Court to the president under Article 116.
It restored full disciplinary authority to the Supreme Court, aligning with the original spirit of the 1972 Constitution.
The verdict also struck down executive-issued disciplinary rules that empowered the law ministry to act as the final authority in disciplinary matters involving lower court judges 鈥� calling such provisions a violation of the principle of separation of powers.
However, the bench upheld Article 115, which vests the appointing authority of subordinate judges in the president.
The bench of Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury delivered the judgment while disposing of a public interest litigation filed by nine Supreme Court lawyers.
Petitioner lawyer Mohammad Shishir Manir sought restoration of the Supreme Court鈥檚 exclusive authority to oversee the appointments, discipline, and transfers of lower court judges 鈥� powers originally granted under Article 116 of the 1972 Constitution, but later diluted by constitutional amendments and executive rules.
The court cited findings and recommendations of multiple national bodies鈥攊ncluding the Constitution Reform Commission, the Judicial Reform Commission, and the National Consensus Commission鈥攚hich had consistently called for the judiciary to be administratively independent and for a separate Supreme Court secretariat to ensure that autonomy.
The High Court had earlier, on October 27, 2024, issued a ruling asking the interim government to explain why the existing Article 116 should not be struck down as unconstitutional. The provision, as it stands, gives the President the power to control the service matters of lower court judges 鈥榠n consultation with the Supreme Court,鈥� creating what the court described as a 鈥榙ual administrative structure鈥� that undermines judicial independence.
