Hearing on review petition over Warrant of Precedence verdict adjourned until 1 July

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing on the government's review petition regarding the Warrant of Precedence verdict until 1 July. 

The Cabinet Division has requested an amicable resolution regarding the ongoing review of the Warrant of Precedence, which outlines the order of seniority of key state officials in Bangladesh.

Advocate Salahuddin Dolon, appearing on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, read out the previous verdict of the Appellate Division during a hearing today (18 May).

Seeking more time for the government to respond, Dolon asked the court for a one-month extension. However, the Appellate Division, led by Acting Chief Justice Ashfaqul Islam, expressed its reluctance to grant further time.

"This is our final prayer for extension," Dolon said. The court then set 1 July as the new date for the next hearing.

Representing the Deputy Attorney General and Assistant Attorneys General of the Attorney General's Office, senior lawyer Ahsanul Karim questioned the existing hierarchy, saying, "How is it that the honourable judges of the Appellate Division and the High Court, despite holding constitutional posts, are placed below others in the order?"

"If High Court judges, who can summon or direct a ministry, are placed below those officials in the order of precedence, how will those directives be effective?" he added. 

In response to the court's query regarding India's system, Ahsanul Karim noted that Bangladesh's protocol is "unique" and should be considered on its own merits.

The issue dates back to 11 January 2015, when the Supreme Court's Appellate Division issued a verdict fixing the state's Warrant of Precedence. 

The full verdict, published on 10 November 2016, stated that constitutional officeholders should be prioritised and ranked higher in the official hierarchy.

The 62-page judgment was authored by former Chief Justice Md Mozammel Hossain. It recommended elevating the Chief Justice's rank to be equivalent to that of the Speaker of the Parliament and called for appropriate recognition of other constitutional officeholders, including recipients of the Independence Award and Ekushey Padak, as well as Bir Uttam freedom fighters.

It also upgraded District Judges and their equivalents from the 24th to the 16th position, on par with secretaries, and placed Additional District Judges at the 17th position. 

Previously, District and Sessions Judges were placed below several administrative officials, such as the Commandant of the Marine Academy and Deputy Commissioners.

The court, however, clarified that the Warrant of Precedence should only apply to state ceremonies and should not influence policymaking or administrative decisions.

The existing Warrant of Precedence was formulated in 1986 under the Rules of Business, with the President's approval, and was last revised in December 2003. 

The validity of that revised order was challenged in a writ petition filed in 2006 by Md Ataur Rahman, former Secretary of the Bangladesh Judicial Service Association. He argued that constitutional positions were unfairly ranked below administrative officers.

On 4 February 2010, the High Court declared the 1986 Warrant of Precedence void and issued eight directives. The state appealed the verdict in 2011.

The Appellate Division's observations noted that in 1975, the Chief Justice held the same fourth position in precedence as the Speaker. With the abolition of the Vice President's post, the Prime Minister moved to the second position. However, without justification, the Speaker was raised to third place while the Chief Justice was demoted to fourth — an inconsistency the court said was not aligned with the Constitution.

The court proposed restoring the Chief Justice to the third position alongside the Speaker. It also recommended promoting Appellate Division judges to the seventh position, up from their current eighth position, where they sit alongside the Chief Election Commissioner and state ministers. High Court judges and the Attorney General would remain in the eighth position.

The verdict also advised raising Members of Parliament and the Comptroller and Auditor General to the 12th position and placing the Public Service Commission chairman in the 15th. 

Currently, the CAG shares the 15th slot with the Attorney General, while the PSC chairman sits in the 16th position alongside the Inspector General of Police.

The judgment concluded by expressing hope that the government would act in accordance with the observations of the court.