PM Directs Executive Branch to Follow Rules of Business in Assigning Judges

The appointment of serving judicial officers to key executive positions has renewed debate over the constitutional boundaries between the judiciary and the executive in Bangladesh. The practice, which began under the previous interim government and has continued under the current government, has caused unease within the administration cadre. Judicial officers are working on deputation at various institutions, including the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), Bangladesh Public Service Commission (BPSC), Ministry of Home Affairs, Local Government Division, National Human Rights Commission and city corporations.

Officers holding the ranks of district and sessions judge, additional district and sessions judge, joint district and sessions judge, and assistant judge have been appointed to these positions. However, the government has not clearly explained the purpose or policy basis of these appointments. The Ministry of Public Administration has said that Prime Minister Tarique Rahman directed that the Rules of Business be followed when judicial officers are appointed to executive positions.

Some administration cadre officials believe judicial officers are being appointed to executive roles because their legal expertise can help address growing legal complexities in administrative and policymaking work. Others fear that regularly appointing judicial officers to key executive positions could adversely affect the career planning, promotion prospects and morale of administration cadre officials.

A broader question has also emerged: Are these appointments being made to meet specific needs, or do they signal a new direction in the administrative structure? If the practice becomes routine, what impact will it have on the constitutional principle of separating the judiciary from the executive?

Mohammad Kamruzzaman Chowdhury, secretary of the Ministry of Public Administration, acknowledged the appointments. He said, “Some judicial officers have been appointed to the executive branch. We have learned about the matter and discussed it. The Prime Minister has directed that the Rules of Business must be followed by officials of both the judiciary and the executive in the administration. Everyone must perform their duties in the appropriate place. We must move forward in accordance with the rules, regulations and laws. There will be no conflict if this is followed.”

Judicial Officers in Administrative Positions

Several judicial officers have recently been appointed to the ACC. District Judge Shahnaz Sultana was appointed director general (legal) of the commission but was later replaced by Mohammad Ali Hossain. Joint district judges Ismet Jahan, Azadur Rahman Sheikh, Mohammad Humayun Kabir and Sajedur Rahman served as deputy directors of the ACC. They were recently returned to judicial duties. Additional District and Sessions Judge Mohammad Iqbal Bahar and District and Sessions Judge Shahadat Hossain Pramanik are currently serving as ACC directors. Senior Assistant Judge Mohammad Mahadi Hasan has served as an assistant director of the commission.

At the Bangladesh Public Service Commission, Assistant Judges Mustafa Hasan Chowdhury and Fatematuz Zohra were appointed assistant secretaries, while District and Sessions Judge M. A. Hamid was appointed legal adviser. Other appointments include District and Sessions Judge M. A. Said as legal adviser to the Local Government Division; District and Sessions Judge Mohammad Moazzem Hossain as a joint secretary at the Ministry of Home Affairs; Joint District and Sessions Judge Mohammad Mosharraf Hossain as legal officer at Rangpur City Corporation; and District and Sessions Judge Kudrat-e-Elahi as secretary of the National Human Rights Commission. There are many other similar examples.

Officials familiar with public administration say legal complexities in running the state have increased considerably. The government now faces regular legal challenges involving anti-corruption efforts, administrative investigations, human rights, international agreements, cyber laws, financial crimes, constitutional issues and the legality of administrative decisions.

In this context, the legal interpretation skills and experience of judicial officers may be useful in executive work. Their experience in investigations, litigation and prosecution could be particularly valuable at institutions such as the ACC.

However, critics question why serving judicial officers must be appointed to key executive positions to meet these needs. Similar expertise could be obtained from retired judges, the Law Commission, university law professors, senior lawyers and independent constitutional experts. Without a clear policy defining when serving judges should be appointed and when advice should be sought from other sources, the controversy is likely to continue.

Unease Within the Administration Cadre

Several serving and former administration cadre officials have acknowledged growing unease over the recent appointments. They say administration cadre officers generally spend years gaining experience in field administration, district administration, land management, local government, law and order, development administration and disaster management. They then gradually move into policymaking positions. Regularly appointing officials from other cadres to important executive posts outside this established career structure could create uncertainty about promotions and career development among administration cadre officials.

A Different Approach at the Law Ministry

During the interim government’s tenure, new rules were introduced to facilitate the appointment of judicial officers to the Law and Justice Division of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. Under the Law and Justice Division Appointment Rules, 2025, issued on July 28, 2025, members of the Bangladesh Judicial Service can be appointed to designated positions, including assistant secretary, senior assistant secretary, deputy secretary, deputy solicitor, joint secretary, solicitor, additional secretary and secretary.

However, the rules allow administration cadre officials to fill 25 per cent of the posts of assistant secretary, senior assistant secretary, deputy secretary, joint secretary and additional secretary, subject to the consent of the Law and Justice Division. The rules also specify the experience required for different positions. Candidates for secretary must have at least 25 years of experience in the Bangladesh Judicial Service, while those seeking additional secretary positions must have 21 years. The requirements are 15 years for joint secretary or solicitor, 10 years for deputy secretary or deputy solicitor, five years for senior assistant secretary and three years for assistant secretary.

Appointments to the secretary and additional secretary positions are to be made by the Law and Justice Division with the President’s approval after consultation with the Supreme Court. Consultation with the Supreme Court is also required for other positions. These rules replaced the 2001 policy governing appointments to first-class positions in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs.

Administration Cadre Officials Raise Questions

Some administration cadre officials argue that if a specific appointment structure has been created for judicial officers in the Law and Justice Division, a similar balance of policy should be maintained in the executive branch. They point out that many administration cadre officials also have formal legal education. According to figures provided by them, at least 298 administration cadre officials hold law degrees at the honours level. They claim the number is higher when officials with legal qualifications at other levels are included.

This has raised questions about how effectively the government uses the legal expertise of administration cadre officials when legal skills are needed in executive administration. There have also been complications over the appointment of administration cadre officials to the Law Ministry in the past. According to the officials, Hedayetullah Al Mamun, a member of the BCS 1982 batch and a former additional secretary, was transferred from the Ministry of Public Administration to the Law Ministry but could not join the new post. Administration officials believe these past incidents should be compared with the current rules and recent appointments to assess whether a consistent policy is being followed.

Article 22 of the Constitution and the Masdar Hossain Case

The debate has a significant constitutional dimension. Article 22 of Bangladesh’s Constitution states the principle of separating the judiciary from the executive, while Article 116A guarantees the independence of judicial officers in performing their judicial duties. The landmark Masdar Hossain case, decided in 2007, provided a clearer basis for separating the subordinate judiciary from the executive.

Legal experts caution against concluding that appointing serving judicial officers to executive positions is automatically prohibited. The relevant laws, service rules, nature of the position and responsibilities must first be considered. However, if such appointments become a regular institutional practice rather than isolated or temporary arrangements, questions about judicial independence and the separation of powers are likely to arise.

Supreme Court lawyer and constitutional expert Advocate Manzil Morshed told the daily Inqilab that Article 22 provides the constitutional direction for separating the judiciary from the executive, while Article 116A safeguards the independence of judicial officers.

He said, “Whether the appointment of serving judicial officers to the executive branch is entirely prohibited by law is a separate question. But if such appointments become regular or institutionalised, questions may arise in the public mind about judicial independence. The main principle of the Masdar Hossain verdict was to ensure the institutional independence of the judiciary. Therefore, judicial independence and the separation of powers must be considered when formulating such policies.”

Clear Boundaries Are Necessary

Anwar Faruk, a public administration expert and former secretary, said each cadre has its own specialised skills. The administration cadre specialises in field administration, policy implementation and public service management, while the judiciary specialises in legal interpretation and judicial decisions. The expertise of one branch may be useful to the other, he said, but clear institutional boundaries must be maintained.

More Than a Cadre Dispute

Policy analysts say the appointments raise at least four important questions.
First, could they weaken the constitutional separation between the judiciary and the executive? Second, could a judicial officer’s involvement in executive policymaking affect public confidence in their impartiality if they later return to judicial duties? Third, what accountability, reporting and performance evaluation systems would apply while judicial officers serve in executive positions? Fourth, how can professional balance between the administration and the judiciary be maintained?

Analysts say these questions cannot be resolved through individual appointments alone. They require a transparent policy framework.

An Old Case Returns to the Debate

A journalist filed a case in the High Court in 2007 seeking to stop judicial officers from being appointed to executive positions. According to sources familiar with the case, hearings took place twice, but no further hearing was held after the Awami League formed the government in 2009. As a result, the matter did not receive a final judicial resolution. This has added another dimension to the current debate, as questions about the constitutional and administrative legality of assigning executive duties to judicial officers have been under discussion for many years.

Need for a Transparent Policy
Both the judiciary and the executive are essential state institutions. Effective governance requires a capable administration, while the rule of law and protection of citizens’ rights depend on an independent judiciary. The government may benefit from judicial officers’ expertise in dealing with legal complexities. However, without clear rules, transparent criteria and institutional balance, the practice could increase dissatisfaction within the administration and raise concerns about judicial independence.

Public administration experts have therefore proposed introducing a separate policy for appointing serving judicial officers to executive positions, clearly defining the posts they may hold, and disclosing the reasons for such appointments and the staffing needs involved. They have also recommended greater involvement of retired judges and independent legal experts in legal reform and policy advice, along with stronger institutional coordination between the administration and the judiciary. If necessary, the issue could be discussed openly in a parliamentary standing committee or another relevant policymaking forum.