In the ongoing discussions regarding legal and constitutional reforms in Bangladesh, the issue of judicial independence has been a prominent focal point. The ruling party, BNP, which recently transitioned into government after a prolonged period in opposition, has consistently emphasized the necessity of ensuring complete autonomy for the judiciary over the past couple of decades.
The call for judicial independence stemmed from political motivations, with BNP alleging that the judiciary was misused to target its leaders and supporters. Instances such as the conviction of the party’s key figure, Begum Khaleda Zia, in contentious cases, her subsequent incarceration, travel restrictions for medical treatment, and the perceived misuse of the judiciary to tarnish her reputation all highlighted concerns about the lack of judicial autonomy in the nation. Similarly, the current prime minister also encountered politically motivated legal challenges that prompted extended stays abroad and convictions.
BNP has articulated that genuine judicial independence and impartiality would prevent the harassment faced by its members if implemented. However, a noticeable discrepancy in BNP’s stance has emerged following its assumption of power in February 2026.
While in opposition, on July 13, 2023, BNP unveiled a 31-point plan outlining structural reforms in Bangladesh. Notably, point 10 underscored the commitment to guarantee the effective autonomy of the Judiciary in alignment with the Constitution and the Masdar Hossain Case ruling. The proposal included vesting control and oversight of subordinate courts in the Supreme Court, establishing a dedicated judiciary secretariat under the Supreme Court, and enacting legislation defining the qualifications and standards for Supreme Court Judges.
At the National Consensus Commission discussions last year, BNP endorsed all the aforementioned points without any objections. These principles were further affirmed in the July National Charter, and BNP actively supported the subsequent referendum endorsing the charter’s provisions on judiciary control, secretariat establishment, and judicial appointment processes. In its election manifesto, BNP reiterated its commitment to transferring control of subordinate courts to the SC, enacting laws for judge appointments, and enhancing the judiciary secretariat established in 2025.
However, post-election, the parliament, where BNP holds a significant majority, repealed the ordinances pertaining to the judiciary secretariat and judge appointments on April 9, causing a setback to the reform agenda.
The Masdar Hossain Case, referenced in BNP’s plan, marked a pivotal legal ruling on judicial independence. This case challenged the alterations made to Article 116 of the constitution, particularly regarding the control of subordinate courts, which had been a contentious issue since the inception of the constitution in 1972.
The High Court’s decision on September 2, 2025, and subsequent public release on April 7, 2026, annulled the amendments to Article 116, reverting control over subordinate judiciary to the SC and mandating the establishment of a separate judiciary secretariat. A significant step forward was taken with the issuance of the ordinance for the secretariat on November 30, 2025, and progress was made under the interim government’s tenure in setting up the operational secretariat with appointed personnel and budget allocations.
However, the recent repeal of the ordinances raises uncertainties regarding the secretariat’s future and operational status, potentially leading to administrative challenges and a clash between the judiciary and executive branches over this critical matter.
Given the importance of an impartial and independent judiciary in ensuring good governance, citizens expect the High Court’s verdict in the Article 116 case to be upheld and fully implemented. The repeal of the ordinances by BNP raises doubts about its commitment to the July charter and adherence to judicial independence, leaving citizens puzzled by the party’s actions.
Dr. Sharif Bhuiyan, a senior advocate at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh who served as amicus curiae in the Article 116 case, provided insights in this article. The views expressed are solely the author’s own.
