Separate Supreme Court secretariat: appeal hearing set for 12 January

The chamber court of the Appellate Division has fixed 12 January for hearing the appeal against the High Court verdict directing a separate independent secretariat for the Supreme Court within three months.

Chamber Judge of the Appellate Division Md. Rezaul Haque passed the order on Sunday (8 November).

Earlier, on 2 September 2025, a High Court bench of Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Debashish Roy Chowdhury delivered the verdict.

In the verdict, the High Court struck down the provision of Article 116 of the Constitution under which the control (including posting, promotion and granting leave) and discipline of magistrates serving in subordinate courts rested with the President.

As a result, the control and discipline of magistrates serving in subordinate courts now rests with the Supreme Court.

The 2017 Judicial Service (Discipline) Rules framed for subordinate courts were also struck down at the same time.

Advocate Mohammad Shishir Monir appeared for the writ petitioners in court. Senior Advocate Sharif Bhuiyan was the amicus curiae. The then Attorney General Md. Asaduzzaman appeared for the state.

The full 185-page High Court verdict was published on 7 April. On 21 May, the state appealed against the High Court verdict. On 9 June, the Appellate Division stayed the High Court verdict directing a separate independent secretariat for the Supreme Court.

On 25 August 2024, seven lawyers of the Supreme Court filed the writ challenging the validity of Article 116 of the Constitution and the 2017 Judicial Service (Discipline) Rules, and seeking a direction to establish a separate secretariat for the judiciary. The High Court issued a rule on 27 October the same year.

Under Article 116 of the Constitution, the control (including posting, promotion and granting leave) and discipline of persons employed in the judicial service and magistrates performing judicial functions rests with the President. The President exercises this power in consultation with the Supreme Court.

According to the petitioners' lawyer, Article 116 vests the President with control over magistrates serving in subordinate courts. The same article says the President will consult the Supreme Court in exercising this responsibility. But in practice, the executive branch directly interferes in the exercise of this responsibility vested in the President, which undermines the independence of the judiciary.

Under the Constitution of 1972, the control and discipline of magistrates serving in subordinate courts rested with the Supreme Court.

In 1974, through the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, the control and discipline of magistrates was vested in the President. Later, through the Fifth Amendment, the words 'shall be exercised by the President in consultation with the Supreme Court' were added.

Subsequently, when the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court declared the Fifth Amendment Act unconstitutional, the current provision of Article 116 was substituted through the Fifteenth Amendment Act, 2011. That provision remains in Article 116 of the Constitution today.