Appellate Division Bench Leaves the Courtroom

• Our Income Has Fallen Since You Took Over:Bar Association President Tells Chief Justice

The Appellate Division had fined a lawyer 500,000 taka on charges of concealing information. During the hearing centered on this matter, a heated exchange broke out between Chief Justice Mr. Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury and Supreme Court Bar Association President Barrister Mr. Mahbub Uddin Khokon. At one point during the altercation, the Appellate Division bench led by the Chief Justice left the courtroom.

The incident occurred yesterday, Tuesday, around midday in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. At one point during the hearing, Barrister Mr. Khokon addressed the Chief Justice, saying that lawyers’ income had fallen since he became Chief Justice. This remark led to a heated exchange between the Chief Justice and the Bar Association president. At one point during the altercation, around 12:30 PM, the Chief Justice and the other judges of the Appellate Division left the courtroom.

Later, speaking to journalists about the matter, Barrister Mr. Khokon said that a lawyer had been fined 500,000 taka. He said he had respectfully told the Chief Justice that hearings could not be conducted as before since he became Chief Justice, which is why lawyers’ income had fallen, and that imposing a cost of 500,000 taka on a junior lawyer was excessive, asking that he be forgiven.

He said the Chief Justice responded by asking whether lawyers’ income had really fallen since he became Chief Justice, explaining that he had meant to point out that previously there was a bench of 11 judges, with three benches hearing cases, whereas now there is only one bench — and if a stay or injunction is granted in a case, hearings can be delayed, sometimes taking a year even when a chamber judge grants a stay. He cited his own case as an example, saying that although the maximum possible sentence if found guilty was three months, the Appellate Division had kept it stayed for a year, during which he had requested the chamber judge four times to hear the matter against that order but was unable to get a hearing — a situation, he said, faced by lawyers generally, not just him.

The Bar Association president said that no mentioning is allowed in the Appellate Division regarding why a case moved down from a higher list, and that since there is only one bench, people have long been deprived of justice and unable to get their cases heard. He said that if lawyers cannot get their cases heard, how are they to earn, whether little or much — very little, in fact — and that he had said this very respectfully. He said the Chief Justice retorted that he was indeed saying lawyers’ cases and income had decreased, and that he would say so regardless, adding that he had not expected the Chief Justice to react so strongly, noting that while a judge’s office should be above anger or personal feeling, as a representative of lawyers, he had an obligation to make submissions on their behalf, and that what he had said was simply the plain truth.

Asked what happened in the Appellate Division and why the Chief Justice left the courtroom, Attorney General Barrister Mr. Ruhul Quddus Kajol told journalists that around 12:30 PM, Bar President Mr. Mahbub Uddin Khokon came to the Appellate Division and said that a lawyer had been fined. The Chief Justice responded that the order had been passed after considering everything carefully and that the order would not be changed, noting that there had been deception of the court and that even earlier orders of the Supreme Court’s Appellate Division had been flouted.

At this point, the Chief Justice said such things should not be said. Then, quite unexpectedly, Mr. Mahbub Uddin Khokon — who is also a Member of Parliament — said that lawyers’ income had fallen since he became Chief Justice. The Chief Justice reportedly took this somewhat lightly at first and asked whether he really meant that.

Mr. Mahbub Uddin Khokon largely repeated the same point. The Chief Justice then said that what he had said amounted to contempt of court, and that since he had made such a serious remark, he would not continue participating in the court’s proceedings that day — and with that, he got up and left.

For context: In a case involving multiple writ petitions filed over the same matter concerning the appointment of a nikah registrar, the petitioner Mr. Md. Nur Alam and his lawyer Ms. Sufia Ahamed were each fined 500,000 taka — a total of 1 million taka — on charges of concealing information and deception. The fine was imposed by the Appellate Division, with instructions that the money be paid to Dhaka Shishu Hospital within 30 days. Barrister Mr. Mahbub Uddin Khokon represented Mr. Nur Alam, while Barrister Mr. Anik R. Haque, Advocate Mr. Shishir Monir, and Advocate Mr. Amit Das Gupta represented the other nikah registrar, Mr. Mizanur Rahman Murad.