Parliament turns dysfunctional: SC
Absence of institutionalised public institutions has led the people in power to being indulged into abuse of power and showing audacity of freehand exercise of power, the Supreme Court has observed.
In its observations in the 16th amendment annulment verdict, the apex court also depicted a gloomy picture of the country’s parliamentary system, state of human rights, corruption, and other basic rights of the citizens.
“Even after forty-six years of independence, we have not been able to institutionalise any public institutions. There are no checks and balances, there is no watchdog mechanism at work, thus the people in the position are being indulged into abuse of power and showing audacity of freehand exercise of power,” read the verdict.
The court voiced concerns over the state power being a monopoly of a few. “This suicidal tendency of concentration of power is increasing. The greed for power is a like plague, once set in motion it will try to devour everything.”
“Needless to say,” the verdict went on to say, “This WAS NOT at all the aims and vision of our liberation struggle. Our forefathers fought to establish a democratic State, not to produce any power-monster.”
Shedding light on the state of rule of law in the country, the court observed, “The human rights are at stake, corruption is rampant, Parliament is dysfunctional, crores of people are deprived of basic health care, mismanagement in the administration is acute, with the pace of the developed technology, the crimes dimension is changing rapidly, the life and security of the citizens are becoming utterly unsecured.
“The law enforcing agencies are unable to tackle the situation and the combined result of all this is a crippled society, a society where good man does not dream of good things at all; but the bad man is all the more restless to grab a few more of bounty.
“In such a situation, the Executive becomes arrogant and uncontrolled and the bureaucracy will never opt for efficiency,” said the verdict.
Saying that the judiciary is the only relatively independent organ of the State which is striving to keep its nose above the water though sinking, the court feared, “But the judiciary too, cannot survive long in this situation. Yet, no law has been formulated for selection and appointment of Judges in the higher judiciary.”
“Instead of strengthening the judiciary,” the court said, “the Executive is now trying to cripple it and if it happens, there could be disastrous consequences.”
Making a comparison with India, the court said, “In comparison to the standard of democracy, bureaucracy, freedom of the press and rule of law they [India] have been able to establish, we cannot even think to be a match with them in any manner.”
In this connection, the court referred to the views expressed by an Indian jurist VR Krishna Iyer, in his book ‘Legally Yours’ where he said, “Elections are indispensable if democracy is to survive. Elections as instruments become purposeful if only there is a management study of the Houses.
“What we see today in the Houses is howling not deciding because the members are not inspired by sense of management but only of grabbing power. Power without efficient objectives ceases to be serving a democratic rule of law.
“The Legislature becomes a paralysed instrument without rules regulating the governance of the House. It often happens that members are at cross purposes and without a sense of harmony,” read the book of Iyer.
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on 3 July this year scrapped the 16th amendment and restored the Supreme Judicial Council and the full text of the verdict was released 1 August, stirring a huge debate over which of the state organ is sovereign - is it the legislature or the judiciary?
The AL-led 10th parliament on 17 September 2014 unanimously passed the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Bill restoring its power to remove Supreme Court judges on the grounds of misconduct or incapacity, scrapping the existing constitutional provisions for the Supreme Judicial Council inquiry into such allegations.
The country’s main opposition political party - Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) - has hailed the court verdict and is accusing the ruling Bangladesh Awami League (AL) of standing against the judiciary.
On the other hand, the Law Commission chairman and former chief justice ABM Khairul Haque observed that the 16th amendment verdict has effectively removed the judges’ accountability to the people.
The 799-page verdict has been written by the chief justice, Surendra Kumar Sinha, and the other six judges of the Appellate Division - Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah, Nazmun Ara Sultana, Syed Mahmud Hossain, Muhammad Imman Ali, Hasan Foez Siddique, and Mirza Hussain Haider - have concurred with the views of the chief justice.