The “Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Bill, 2014" passed

The House passed the bill in 327-0 votes as per recommendation of the concerned parliamentary standing committee.

Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Anisul Haque piloted the bill for its passage saying the constitution amendment bill is aimed at restoring the dignity of the judiciary and ensuring accountability of the higher court judges.

As many as 14 parliament members brought amendment proposals to the bill and recommended soliciting public opinion and sending it to the select committee before passage of the bill.

The Minister placed the bill in the House on September 7 with a proposal for amending different sections of the Article 96 of the constitution regarding removal of the Supreme Court judges.

During scrutiny of the bill, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs brought significant changes to the preamble of the proposed law and suggested replacement of the sections 2, 3,4,5,6,7 and 8 of the Article 96 of the constitution with the new sections 2, 3 and 4 mentioned below.

The new section (2) says a judge shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed pursuant to a resolution of parliament supported by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total members of the parliament on the ground of proved misconduct or incapacity.

The parliament under section (2) of Article 93 (A) would be able to control the procedure of investigation and proved misconduct and incapacity of the judges through law. The Article 94 says any judge can resign through a letter with signature to the President.

According to the section 1 of the Article 96, subject to the other provisions of this article, a judge shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-seven years.

The section 3 of the Article 96 says parliament shall by law regulate the procedure in relation to a resolution under clause (2) and for investigation and proof of the misconduct or incapacity of a judge.

The section 4 says a judge may resign his office by sending a signed letter addressed to the President.

Besides, new statement on the objective of the bill was given in the parliamentary standing committee report instead of the objective of the placed bill.

The statement of the committee on the bill says in accordance with Article 7 and 11 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, all powers in the Republic belong to the people, and their exercise on behalf of the people shall be effected only under, and by the authority of, this constitution.

There was a provision in the Article 96 of the 1972 constitution regarding impeachment of Supreme Court judges through the Presidential order by having two-thirds majority in parliament for proved misconduct and incapacity.

Later, during the presidential form of government, a new provision was incorporated in the constitution which stipulates that any judge of the Supreme Court may be impeached through a Presidential order.

According to the aforesaid provision, no judge can be removed before giving him or her the scope of replying show cause notices mentioning actions against them on the ground of misconduct and incompetence.

But, in 1977 and 1978, a provision was incorporated in the constitution giving the authority of impeachment of Supreme Court judges on the grounds of misconduct and incapacity to the President following recommendations of the Supreme Judicial Council formed by the Chief Justice and two other senior judges of the Supreme Court.

The provision was against the basic principle of the constitution and democratic spirit as well, the objective says.

In most of the democratic countries in the world, the principle of accountability of the judges of the superior court, like other organs of the state, lies with the parliament consisting of the elected representatives of the people.

Under this perspective, the confidence of people in the independent judicial system would be increased and transparency in this regard would be ensured with the enactment of the law, the objective of the bill said.

Prior to passage of the bill, the law minister in his speech said that the bill has been brought in parliament for restoration of the 1972 constitution and protecting the dignity of the judiciary.

He said this provision to remove a Supreme Court judge is also practiced in almost all democratic and civilized countries including the USA, Canada, South Africa, Sri Lanka and India.

The law minister's speech over, the Speaker as per the rules of procedure of the House put all sections of the bill on division votes. Later, the Speaker put the preamble and title of the bill on division votes, which was accepted unanimously.
-BSS