In a strongly worded full verdict, the Appellate Division has observed that if it discharges a rule issued by the High Court under article 102 of the constitution the decision amounts to ‘judicial anarchy’ and is unconstitutional and void from the outset.
The observation came in the final judgement in a case -- involving more than 1,100 27th BCS appointments -- delivered in an open court on February 22, 2025 and posted on the Supreme Court website on August 14, 2025.
Chief justice Syed Refaat Ahmed and three other judges — Justice Md Ashfaqul Islam, Justice Md Rezaul Haque, and Justice SM Emdadul Hoque — shared the unanimous verdict that was authored by Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury.
The apex court expressed concern over a growing trend, stating, ‘Unfortunately, we are seeing a troubling trend where some judges appear to favour the government, even when their rulings clearly go against the constitution.’
The case involved several candidates who had passed the first viva voce examination for the 27th BCS batch during the BNP government in 2006 but were later disqualified after a second interview held by the army-backed caretaker government in 2008.
The second round was conducted following allegations of irregularities.
Out of the over 3,000 successful candidates, 1,114 were disqualified in the second interview.
The High Court reinstated the affected candidates in a 2010 verdict.
But the Appellate Division later discharged the HC rule, prompting strong criticisms from within the judiciary itself.
The Supreme Court has now overturned its own 2022 judgement and ordered the government to reinstate the candidates immediately, in line with the High Court’s earlier decision.
The Appellate Division, led by chief justice Syed Refaat Ahmed in another verdict, dealt with another significant case involving the termination of 82 upazila election officials, who were removed from service in 2007.
The Election Commission had originally chosen not to appeal the Administrative Appellate Tribunal’s 2010 order that reinstated the officials.
However, the cabinet secretary later filed an appeal — without the EC’s consent.
‘This was a serious legal misstep,’ the verdict said.
The Appellate Division earlier in its 2022 judgement, upheld the terminations based on a ‘suitability test’ conducted by the Institute of Business Administration of the Dhaka University.
But the Supreme Court’s latest verdict noted that the test results were never published, and there was no evidence that the officers failed.
‘Filing the appeal without Election Commission’s consent was a direct encroachment on the independence of a constitutional body,’ the verdict said.
Citing article 118(4) and article 126 of the constitution, along with the Election Commission Secretariat Act, 2009, the Appellate Division reiterated that the EC was a fully independent body and could not be overruled by the executive branch of the state.
The EC had already cancelled the officers’ termination and published a gazette on May 25, 2010, reinstating them.
That gazette was never challenged, meaning that the officers remained legally in service.
Despite this, the earlier Appellate Division judgement allowed an unauthorised appeal by the cabinet secretary, violating the EC’s constitutional autonomy.
The Appellate Division’s latest verdict sharply criticised the judges who, it said, appeared to have leaned towards the ruling party.
‘Of late, it has become an unfortunate episode that in certain cases, judges tend to lean towards the government and pass decisions which are ex facie contrary to the constitution,’ said the Appellate Division.
It says, ‘In addition to procedural fairness, judges must now act in accordance with judicial fairness — they must not only follow the law but also act fairly and diligently towards the litigants.’
The Appellate Division’s latest verdict set aside its previous 2022 judgement in both the 27th BCS and Election Commission cases.
It also ordered an immediate reinstatement of the illegally disqualified officers and asked the government to grant them their arrears, full benefits, and seniority, treating the period they were out of service as extraordinary leave.