The BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party) government has placed bills in the Jatiya Sangsad (national parliament) to repeal two ordinances issued during the tenure of the interim government—one on establishing an independent secretariat for the Supreme Court and another on the appointment of judges.
This move comes despite the party’s earlier commitments, outlined in its 31-point reform agenda and election manifesto, to ensure judicial independence.
Political analysts say the BNP’s current stance contradicts its earlier commitments. Judicial reform was one of the key expectations that emerged after the July mass uprising.
During the tenure of the Awami League government, the BNP had been a victim of politicisation of the judiciary and had been vocal in favour of judicial independence.
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Sharif Bhuiyan told Prothom Alo that after advocating for judicial independence for a long time, the BNP’s current position appears inconsistent to many.
By placing bills in parliament to repeal the two ordinances, the ruling BNP is now being accused of backtracking on its earlier stance. This has raised questions about whether those previous commitments were merely political strategies.
A special parliamentary committee reviewed 133 ordinances issued during the 18-month tenure of the interim government. The committee recommended placing 98 ordinances before parliament as bills and suggested amendments for 15 others. Of the remaining 20, it recommended repealing four and not placing 16 before parliament at this stage—effectively rendering these 20 ordinances void.
The 31-point plan also proposed enacting a “Judges Appointment Law” with specific qualifications and criteria for appointing Supreme Court judges. The BNP reiterated a positive stance on this issue during discussions at the Consensus Commission last year.
Among the four recommended for repeal are the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance 2025 and the Supreme Court Judges Appointment Ordinance 2025. If these ordinances enacted, The Soupreme court would have control over subordinate courts and created scope for appointing higher court judges free from government influence.
However, on Monday, Law Minister Asaduzzaman introduced two separate bills in parliament to repeal these ordinances—the Supreme Court Secretariat (Repeal) Bill and the Supreme Court Judges Appointment (Repeal) Bill.
Earlier, a ministry-level review and advisory report on the ordinances issued during the interim government stated that the judges’ appointment ordinance conflicted with the Constitution.
Regarding the Supreme Court Secretariat ordinance, the report noted that under the current system there exists a “check and balance” between the government and the judiciary. The Supreme Court takes decisions on matters such as transfer, promotion, and discipline of judges based on proposals from the government. This ensures that judges are not under the exclusive control of any single authority, reducing the risk of arbitrary decisions affecting them.
The report further stated that under the ordinance, the Chief Justice would have exclusive control over lower court judges, with no coordination with the government. Such concentration of authority in one individual could be harmful to judges.
However, the same ministry-level report also recommended passing the ordinance with amendments, while the parliamentary special committee recommended its repeal. Three opposition members of the committee had objected to this recommendation.
Opposition members also raised objections when the bills related to the Supreme Court were tabled in parliament. At the time, Law Minister Asaduzzaman said there had been a “note of dissent” from opposition members in the committee.
He added that he was only placing the bills and requested the Speaker to schedule them for debate later.
The bills may be discussed in parliament today (Thursday) or tomorrow (Friday).
BNP’s commitments to judicial reform
While in opposition, on 13 July, 2023, the BNP announced a 31-point reform outline aimed at “state restructuring and economic liberation.”
The ninth point of this outline stated that effective judicial independence would be ensured in line with the Constitution of Bangladesh and the verdict in the Masdar Hossain Case. It also said that control and disciplinary authority over subordinate courts would be vested in the Supreme Court, and a separate secretariat under the Supreme Court would be established for the judiciary.
The 31-point plan also proposed enacting a “Judges Appointment Law” with specific qualifications and criteria for appointing Supreme Court judges. The BNP reiterated a positive stance on this issue during discussions at the Consensus Commission last year.
After winning the 13th parliamentary elections held on 12 February, 2026, the BNP came to power. Its election manifesto pledged to enact a Judges Appointment Law for appointing Supreme Court judges, vest control over subordinate courts in the Supreme Court, and strengthen a separate secretariat under the Supreme Court for the judiciary.
According to BNP sources, the party plans to introduce a new bill on the matter. Chief Whip Nurul Islam, a member of the special committee, recently told Prothom Alo that a new bill would be brought later to ensure full independence of the Supreme Court.
However, some observers say that if there had been political will, the existing bills could have been passed with amendments. There are doubts about how much independence the judiciary will be granted under the new legislation the BNP plans to introduce.
Court ruling on article 116
Judicial independence has been a demand of people in this region for nearly 150 years. The political commitment to separate the judiciary from the executive is also over a century old. A resolution to this effect was adopted in the Bengal Legislative Assembly in 1921. Later, it was included in the Jukta Front’s 21-point programme in 1954, the Awami League’s 1970 election manifesto, and the 1972 Constitution.
After the mass uprising of 1990, the outlines of the three alliances also guaranteed this separation. Following the 2024 uprising, Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus in his first address, and former Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed in his roadmap, reiterated strong commitments to judicial independence and reform.
A major obstacle to judicial independence has been Article 116 of the Constitution, which deals with control, appointment, and promotion of subordinate courts. In the original 1972 Constitution, this authority was vested in the Supreme Court. However, through the Fourth, Fifth, and Fifteenth Amendments, this authority was transferred to the President, effectively placing it under the executive branch.
In a public interest litigation, the High Court in September last year directed that Article 116 be restored to its original 1972 position—returning control of subordinate courts to the Supreme Court. It also ordered the establishment of a separate secretariat to ensure effective judicial independence. The full verdict was published last Tuesday.
Following the High Court’s directive, some progress had been made in judicial reform during the interim government’s tenure. However, some fear that the decision to repeal the two Supreme Court-related ordinances may create new complications.
Senior lawyer Sharif Bhuiyan said, “If the Supreme Court-related ordinances are repealed while the High Court verdict remains in force, or if efforts are made to retain executive control over subordinate courts, it would directly contradict the court’s ruling. This could create an unwarranted conflict between the judiciary and the executive at the very outset of the new government.”