HC stays circular reducing security for SC judges, attorney general
The court also issued a rule asking why the 27 August circular should not be declared illegal and cancelled.
The High Court today (14 September) suspended the effectiveness of a government circular that reduced security arrangements for Supreme Court judges, the attorney general and others associated with the judiciary.
The court also issued a rule asking why the circular should not be declared illegal and cancelled, directing the senior secretary of the Home Ministry to respond within four weeks.
The HC bench of Justice JBM Hasan and Justice Aziz Ahmed Bhuiyan passed the order after hearing a writ petition challenging the circular.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Ten Supreme Court lawyers and law students filed the writ petition on Sunday, challenging the circular issued on 27 August 2026.
Senior lawyer Mohammad Shishir Manir filed the petition on behalf of the petitioners.
The petitioners are Advocates Mohammad Saddam Hossain, Abdullah Sadik, Md Mizanul Haque, Zayed Bin Amzad, Mohammad Shanewaz, Sabbir Rahman and Mahmudul Hasan, along with Dhaka University law students Shamim Shahidi, Md Rafiul Sabbir and Habibur Rahman Al Hasan.
After filing the petition, Shishir Manir told reporters that Supreme Court judges receive security under a category set out in the Warrant of Precedence, alongside secretaries, but that their security arrangements had been reduced.
A similar circular was issued on 2 March 2025. The High Court had then issued a suo motu rule and stayed its effectiveness. The circular was subsequently cancelled on 9 March 2025.
Shishir Monir said the writ petition argues that issuing the new circular despite the previous court order undermines the security and dignity of the judiciary and violates judicial independence, separation of powers and the basic structure of the Constitution.
The petitioners have sought cancellation of the circular issued on 27 August.
They argued that the circular is inconsistent with the existing Warrant of Precedence and the Appellate Division's judgment in Bangladesh vs Ataur Rahman and others.
The petitioners also sought a stay on the circular's effectiveness, a declaration that it was issued without lawful authority and has no legal effect, and directions to restore the previous security arrangements.
