Heated exchanges expose the ugly face of the judiciary
Sayeed Ahmed
The Supreme Court’s Appellate Division had fined two lawyers 500,000 taka each on charges of obtaining orders by concealing information. While speaking about this punishment, Supreme Court Bar President Barrister Mr. Mahbubuddin Khokon MP told the Chief Justice that hearings could not be conducted as before since he became Chief Justice, and that lawyers’ income had fallen as a result.
Centering on this remark, Barrister Mr. A. M. Mahbubuddin Khokon, the elected representative of lawyers as Supreme Court Bar President, became embroiled in a heated exchange with Chief Justice Mr. Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury. At one point in the dispute, the Appellate Division, led by the Chief Justice, left the courtroom.
This unprecedented incident in the judiciary did not just create heat within legal circles, it spilled over into parliament. The Attorney General spoke on behalf of the government regarding this matter. The Law Minister spoke in the National Parliament. The Bar President made several further statements outside the court as well. The matter was not confined to the Bar and Bench alone, and the issue spread across the country. This judiciary issue may lose relevance after some bigger event occurs, and relations between the Bar and Bench may improve through a graceful settlement and mutual goodwill. But how long can the black gown of the judiciary conceal the ugly reality that this dispute, and the subsequent statements of the Attorney General and the Supreme Court Bar President, have exposed?
Justice Mr. Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury was appointed as the 26th Chief Justice on December 23 last year, taking oath on December 28. When he assumed the post, the number of judges in the Appellate Division, including himself, was only four. After Justice Mr. Habibul Gani joined the Appellate Division on August 29, the number rose to five. There is no fixed organogram for how many judges the Appellate Division can have. At its peak, as many as 11 judges served in the Appellate Division, a number that has now fallen to less than half, which is extremely small relative to a country of about 200 million people. Amid such constraints, it is simply not possible for a Chief Justice to reduce the massive backlog of cases.
For the sake of preserving the judiciary’s image, dignity and sensitivity, it may have been appropriate for the Chief Justice to leave the courtroom, but is that truly a solution? The judge shortage in the Appellate Division is long standing, and this has caused the case backlog to reach an extreme level. According to the latest figures, 38,713 cases are pending in the Appellate Division, a record number. In this situation, it is impossible for a single bench to dispose of cases as expected. This is not the sole responsibility of the Chief Justice as an individual either, since the Chief Justice cannot appoint judges, as that is the government’s job.
Why is the government not appointing the necessary number of judges to such an important place as the Appellate Division? The government may have several reasonable answers to this question, and various calculations may be involved. But is there any alternative to quickly appointing judges to reduce the Appellate Division’s case backlog? The situation in the High Court Division is similarly dire. According to the latest data, everyone knows about the 522,331 cases pending across subordinate courts. As of March 31, the number of pending cases stood at 4,078,432. Based on the existing judicial structure and management, disposing of this total number of cases would take 14 years and 8 months in the subordinate courts, 8 years and 8 months in the High Court, and 5 years in the Appellate Division, respectively, and that too only if not a single new case is filed. This is essentially an impossible task.
Many believe that this case backlog exists solely due to a shortage of judges, but the reality is different. The case backlog and delays in disposal are collectively caused by a shortage of judges, a shortage of judge support staff, lack of infrastructure, bureaucratic complications, outdated manual copying systems, an antiquated correspondence system, chaotic record management, corruption among judiciary officials and staff, excessive greed for money among unscrupulous lawyers, and corruption among judges, among other factors.
The matter of the Chief Justice leaving the courtroom was later clarified by Attorney General Barrister Mr. Ruhul Kuddus Kajol. He said the Chief Justice prioritizes judicial discipline and integrity, and takes any deception he observes seriously.
This explanation from the Attorney General may well be true. The question is, should judicial discipline be sought only inside the Appellate Division courtroom? It is natural that everyone from the Chief Justice down through judicial posts would seek discipline, integrity, transparency and fairness. But whose responsibility is it to keep track of the disorder and chaos across the country’s judiciary as a whole? Are litigants getting justice in a timely manner? Are those who cannot afford high fees for renowned lawyers getting fair justice?
On the day of the incident, a session of the National Parliament was underway. On a point of order, an opposition MP raised the matter of the Chief Justice leaving the courtroom in parliament. On this, Law Minister Mr. Asaduzzaman’s remarks were along these lines: the incident occurred with the Supreme Court Bar Association, which does not fall under any organ of the state, though he believes no one should cause such an incident in the future as a responsible citizen. Later, another opposition MP demanded a clear statement from the Law Minister on the matter. In response, the Law Minister again said the Supreme Court Bar Association is not part of Bangladesh’s three organs of the state, being an informal body, an organization of lawyers who practice in the Supreme Court, and therefore part of the public. It does not represent the judiciary, legislature or executive, but that does not mean he was legitimizing the incident.
Citing a past precedent of a similar incident in court, Law Minister Mr. Asaduzzaman said such incidents happen in courts, being a matter of the Bar and Bench relationship, and that as lawyers, they sometimes fight with opposing counsel or the bench, but reunite once outside. This remark by the Law Minister in the National Parliament may go on record as an attempt to downplay the matter, but where is the answer to the Pandora’s box that the Supreme Court Bar President opened the next day regarding the existing situation in the judiciary?
On September 10, Bar President Barrister Mr. Mahbubuddin Khokon issued a stern warning, demanding that the judiciary be freed of corruption within one month. He said that within the next month, the Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, High Court Division and lower courts across the country must be made corruption free.
He said he had contacted Supreme Court lawyers, and many lawyers outside had also reached out, everyone worried about corruption in the judiciary, corruption in case lobbying, corruption in getting cases listed, corruption in hearings, corruption among some judicial officers, corruption everywhere in the Supreme Court, and corruption even in getting cases listed in the High Court. These are the lawyers’ own statements. He said he considers it his duty to demand of the honorable Chief Justice that the Supreme Court’s Appellate and High Court Divisions be made corruption free in every respect, noting that corruption may exist elsewhere too, but corruption cases are tried in the Supreme Court, yet litigants must lobby to get their own cases heard there, and having to pay money everywhere is unfortunate.
He said he had raised this point before and was raising it again with the Chief Justice, demanding that the Appellate Division, High Court Division and every court across Bangladesh be made corruption free within the next month.
Notably, no commitment has come from the Supreme Court authorities, the Attorney General or the Law Minister to rid the judiciary of corruption, even though every litigant is a victim of this reality. This corruption runs through multiple levels. A case that could be resolved in a minute over a small decision can take years just to get listed on the cause list. After much effort, lobbying and money spent, if the case is finally listed, the bench suddenly changes and jurisdiction shifts to another judge, leaving the litigant in a hopeless, endless struggle, with no consideration given to their plight.
Corruption takes such multifaceted forms, spreading its branches like banyan roots to engulf the judiciary entirely. Corruption has become commonplace here. Not just the accused, but some lawyers are involved in fraud and forgery too, alongside the menace of touts and middlemen. To this day, there is no fixed ceiling on what fees any category of lawyer may charge, and there is no “invoice” for transactions between lawyers and litigants. Cases, courts, trials, lawyers, the judiciary as a whole, is no longer a place of trust for litigants seeking justice, but has become merely a source of income for court support staff and lawyers. Aggrieved litigants now have only one question: how much longer will this ugly face of the judiciary be concealed behind the black gowns of lawyers and judges?
