HC disposes of writ on SC Judges Appointment Ordinance with observations
Writ petitioner Md Ajmal Hossain Khokon told reporters that the details of the observations would be known once the full judgment is released
The High Court has disposed of the writ petition challenging the validity of four sections of the Supreme Court Judges Appointment Ordinance-2025 with observations.
The bench of Justice Md Akram Hossain Chowdhury and Justice Debashish Roy Chowdhury delivered the order today (28 April).
Senior lawyers Zainul Abedin, M Badruddoza, Kayser Kamal, and Mohammad Shishir Manir moved for the petition while Additional Attorney General Anik R Haque represented the state.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
After the hearing, writ petitioner Md Ajmal Hossain Khokon told reporters that the details of the observations would be known once the full judgment is released.
A gazette was issued on the Supreme Court Judges Appointment Ordinance-2025 on 21 January, introducing provisions for the appointment of judges to the High Court through a council. The ordinance outlines the creation of a permanent body, the Supreme Judicial Appointments Council, to assist the Chief Justice in recommending and selecting judges for the Supreme Court.
According to the gazette notification, the Chief Justice will serve as the chairperson of the council, which will consist of seven members. Five of these members will be ex-officio members, including the Chief Justice, the senior-most judge of the Appellate Division, the senior-most judge of the High Court Division (not appointed from the Judicial Division), the senior-most judge appointed from the Judicial Division, and the Attorney General of Bangladesh. Two additional members will be a law professor or legal expert nominated by the Chief Justice and a retired Appellate Division judge.
On 23 January, Md Ajmal Hossain sent a legal notice requesting amendments to certain sections of the ordinance. After receiving no response, he filed a writ petition on 26 February, challenging the validity of sections 3, 4, 6, and 9 of the ordinance.
Section 3 concerns the establishment of the council, Section 4 addresses the role of the council secretary, Section 6 outlines the council's powers and functions, and Section 9 deals with recommendations on the appointment of Appellate Division judges.
