Coordination and Efficiency Must Be Ensured in Court Proceedings
A dispute of sorts took place between Chief Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury and Supreme Court Bar Association President Barrister Mahbub Uddin Khokon at a bench led by the Chief Justice in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court over a court directive in a case. After the court ordered a fine of Tk 5 lakh each on the petitioner and lawyer of a writ petition for concealing information, Barrister Mahbub Uddin Khokon sought waiver of the fine. During the hearing, he raised issues including the shortage of judges and benches in the Appellate Division, delays in disposing of cases and declining incomes of lawyers. When he complained that these problems had arisen during the Chief Justice’s tenure, the Chief Justice termed his remarks contemptuous of the court and left the courtroom along with the other judges on the bench. The incident occurred at around 12:30pm last Tuesday at the Supreme Court. Those concerned have described it as unprecedented in Bangladesh’s judiciary.
Although the Chief Justice’s order imposing the fine in the case was not discussed, the incident has exposed a lack of coordination and mutual dissatisfaction between the two major sides of the judiciary—the judges and the lawyers. While the Chief Justice’s directive brought to light the alleged concealment of information by the lawyer concerned, the Supreme Court Bar president’s remarks highlighted several problems, including a shortage of judges, declining incomes of lawyers and prolonged litigation. As the unprecedented and widely discussed incident has drawn public attention, people expect intervention at the highest level of the state to pave the way for a solution.
The judiciary is the last refuge and source of hope for people facing discrimination, oppression and denial of justice. In the past, the Awami authoritarian government, like other state institutions, turned the judiciary into a catalyst for partisan fascism. The weaknesses, political bias and culture of impunity in our judiciary did not emerge overnight or within a single decade. The crisis was created in the post-independence period through the transformation of the country’s democratic system into one-party fascism. There have been numerous instances of politically motivated judicial appointments, misconduct by judges and violations of their oaths. The people have rejected fascist misrule and the culture of impunity.
In the political reality following the July uprising, people’s expectations from a democratically elected government are high, while many of their expectations from the judiciary remain unfulfilled. The reported altercation and differences of opinion between the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court Bar president in the courtroom have brought the existing problems and crises in the judiciary to the nation’s attention. While the incident reflects a lack of coordination between judges and lawyers, who are two complementary sides of the judicial system, the principal victims are ordinary people seeking justice. Shortages of judges and benches, sluggish proceedings, and a lack of coordination among lawyers and the judicial administration are increasing the suffering of litigants. The state must take immediate steps to overcome these problems.
The remarks of the Supreme Court Bar president have revealed that the number of judges and benches in the Appellate Division has declined compared with the past. Meanwhile, the number of cases and the backlog continue to grow. There is no possibility of resolving the problem effectively under the existing system. From the lower courts to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, the number of judges and benches needs to be increased in proportion to the number of cases; there can be no justification for reducing them. The old maxim, “Justice delayed is justice denied,” is entirely applicable to our judicial system. Litigants often spend decades running from one court corridor to another through hearings, testimony, judicial procedures and judgments, yet their cases remain unresolved.
The responsibility does not rest solely with judges. A section of lawyers are also confusing and obstructing the judicial process through opacity and concealment of information. At present, around 4.5 million cases are pending in courts across the country. Although the number of cases is increasing steadily, the rate of disposal remains very low. If this continues, the judiciary may lose public confidence. The impact of social and political disorder, moral degradation and political criminalisation has also tainted the judiciary. There is no way out unless the judiciary is freed from partisan political influence and transparency, discipline and accountability are ensured.
Transparency and impartiality are essential in the appointment of judges. Likewise, political bias among lawyers and the tendency to engage in partisan political activities within court premises rather than judicial matters cannot be supported. In the High Court, lawyers supporting only the ruling party have become divided into multiple groups and factions. Coordination, good relations and transparency must be ensured among the Attorney General’s Office, the Supreme Court Bar, ordinary lawyers, judges and the judicial process.
Most importantly, unnecessary delays in judicial proceedings, causing suffering to litigants, are tantamount to a denial of justice. Initiatives must be taken to make the judicial system more efficient, reduce case backlogs and alleviate people’s suffering. If judicial proceedings can be made transparent and free from corruption from the lower courts upward, it will be possible to reduce the backlog in the higher courts. Ensuring full independence, transparency and political neutrality of the judiciary is essential for establishing a stable society and state.
