The ongoing assessment by the parliament of the interim government’s 133 ordinances is seen as a pivotal moment to determine if the recent uprising has brought about changes in leadership only, or if it has fundamentally altered the power dynamics. A special committee tasked with reviewing these ordinances is expected to present its findings to parliament by April 2. Any ordinances not implemented within the remaining 30-day timeframe will automatically expire. Among the 133 ordinances, two key ones, the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance, 2025, and the Supreme Court Judges’ Appointment Ordinance, 2025, are crucial democratic safeguards that should not be compromised. Failure to uphold these ordinances would not only undermine parliamentary authority but also reinstate executive dominance over the judiciary, a significant setback.
The parliament’s decision on these ordinances must be made with full consideration of recent events. The February 12 election followed a widespread uprising that, according to the UN Human Rights Office, resulted in a considerable loss of lives, potentially reaching 1,400. This uprising was not just against a single ruler but against a system that had reduced elections to mere formalities and transformed institutions into tools of the executive. The abolishment of the caretaker system in 2011 did not lead to constitutional stability but instead resulted in three contentious elections and a decline in public trust. Therefore, safeguarding judicial independence is vital as it was a core reason for the downfall of the old regime.
The recent ruling on the 13th Amendment should serve as a warning that this issue transcends routine politics. The court’s comprehensive judgment released on March 12, 2026, criticized the abolition of the caretaker system as a “judicial murder of democracy” and highlighted concerns over legislative interference influencing judicial decisions. The judiciary’s credibility has been tarnished, as evidenced by the resignations of prominent judges amidst government pressure. A judiciary perceived as susceptible to external influences cannot uphold democratic values.
The significance of the High Court’s ruling on judicial autonomy and the enactment of the Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinance in 2025 cannot be overstated. These measures aimed to address systemic flaws that compromised judicial independence by granting the Supreme Court authority over lower court judges’ management and establishing a separate judicial secretariat. Without an independent secretariat, judicial independence remains a facade, subject to political control. Similarly, the Supreme Court Judges’ Appointment Ordinance, by introducing a structured process for judicial appointments, seeks to reduce political interference in the selection of judges, a move endorsed by judicial authorities.
While improvements can be made to these laws, repealing or weakening them would signify a regression to opaque practices and political favoritism in judicial appointments. The origin of these ordinances under an interim government should not overshadow their importance in rectifying constitutional deficiencies. Both laws aim to strengthen the judiciary by providing administrative autonomy and curbing political influence in judicial appointments, essential for a functioning democracy.
The government’s commitment to upholding these ordinances will be a testament to its dedication to democratic principles and institutional reforms. Neglecting or compromising these laws would convey a message that reform was merely a campaign promise rather than a sincere commitment to governance. Bangladesh has experienced the consequences of a compromised judiciary and electoral legitimacy, emphasizing the critical need to safeguard the judiciary’s autonomy and the integrity of judicial appointments. Upholding these ordinances is not only a tribute to those who sacrificed during the uprising but also a pledge to uphold the principles of democracy and constitutional governance.
