Appointments of SC judges: Merit often took a back seat

The High Court, in the full text of a verdict, has said that the appointments of Supreme Court judges were not always made on merit, and many unsatisfactory appointments were made to the High Court on political or other considerations, badly affecting the image of the country's judiciary.

"The scheme of our constitution for appointment of judges to the Supreme Court is, by and large, sound, but some defects or lacunae have come to surface in the actual working of the scheme.

"The impression, nevertheless, has prevailed that the appointment of the judges to the Supreme Court has not been always made on merit and many unsatisfactory appointments were made to the High Court on political, or other grounds with the result that the fittest persons were not appointed, which has badly affected the image of the judiciary of the country," the bench of Justice Md Akram Hossain Chowdhury and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury made the observations.

On April 28, the bench delivered the verdict after disposing of a writ petition that challenged the legality of four sections of the Supreme Court Judge Appointment Ordinance, 2025.

On February 26, Supreme Court lawyer Md Ajmol Hossain Khokon submitted the petition as a public interest litigation to the HC, saying that sections 3, 4, 6, and 9 of the ordinance are contradictory to the constitution.

These sections deal with the establishment of the Supreme Judicial Appointment Council; functions of its secretary; powers and functions of the council; and recommendations for appointment of judges of the Appellate Division of the SC respectively.

Earlier on January 21, the law ministry issued the ordinance containing the provision for establishing the seven-member Supreme Judicial Appointment Council led by the chief justice to select suitable persons for appointing judges to the SC's appellate and HC divisions.

In the full text of the judgment, the HC observed that the Supreme Court Judge Appointment Ordinance, 2025, is desirable for a great interest of the nation.

The court said the president of Bangladesh has promulgated the ordinance to plug the loopholes in the present system with a view to eliminating favouritism or the impact of any political or party consideration in the matter of appointment of judges.

"Article 95 (1) of the constitution stipulates that the chief justice shall be appointed by the president, and the other judges shall be appointed by the president after consultation with the chief justice. Pursuant to the Ordinance, 2025, the Supreme Judicial Appointment Council has been established, consisting of individuals known for their integrity and independence, with a judicial background. The Council aims to ensure scrutiny in judicial appointments, eliminating the influence of political or other extraneous considerations before recommending candidates to the president.

"Experience tells us that wrong appointments not only affect the image of the courts, they also undermine the confidence in, and respect for, the judiciary amongst the litigants, the members of the Bar and the ordinary people at large," the HC judges observed in the full text of the verdict.

Writ petitioner lawyer Ajmol, who went through  the HC judgment, told The Daily Star that he was yet to decide about moving an appeal before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court challenging the HC verdict.