Revival of Supreme Judicial Council a positive development: Asif Nazrul

Law Adviser to the interim government Prof Asif Nazrul today said the Supreme Judicial Council has been revived by the Supreme Court ruling.
“There was some confusion regarding this, but today’s court ruling has clarified the situation. The Supreme Judicial Council can now be fully functional,” he told reporters at the Secretariat.
The law adviser said the latest SC verdict provides special significance in the present context.
There are some judges in the High Court against whom there are numerous complaints from various sectors of society, he said.
They were allegedly part of the fascist forces during the July uprising and had become instruments of oppression for that power, he added.
Additionally, there are corruption allegations against some individuals, and reports have been published in newspapers, he further said.
“As a result, many students and people are angry about the issue. Now, with the constitutional establishment of the Supreme Judicial Council, an avenue has opened to address the discontent,” he added.
Still, the higher court is fully independent and will take measures in accordance with its own principles, said the law adviser.
Asif Nazrul said with the SC verdict, students have at least found a suitable forum to channel their grievances or present them to the appropriate authorities.
“I see this as a positive development,” he said.
Responding to a query, he said as per the country’s constitution, the Supreme Judicial Council is already constituted. It consists of the chief justice and the two most senior judges of the Appellate Division.
For example, if anyone files a complaint today, that will initiate the process, he said, adding that there must be a complaint.
There is no need for a separate notification, as stated in the constitution, he further said.
Responding to another query, the law adviser said in the absence of the Supreme Judicial Council, there was no forum to ensure accountability for HC judges.
Furthermore, there was a lack of willingness among the then higher court administration to ensure that accountability, he said, adding that their rulings were often influenced by external demands.
“You are aware of the kind of judgment passed against [BNP Chairperson] Khaleda Zia, and how a ruling was made to restrict [BNP acting chairman] Tarique Rahman’s voice in Bangladesh, reflecting a suppression of freedom of speech,” said the law adviser.
Many other judgments have also been made where numerous individuals have not had the opportunity to protect their human rights; instead, they have faced persecution and suppression of dissent, he further said.
He said those who were in power previously did not have the intention to ensure this accountability, and hoped the present court administration possesses that willingness.
With the SC verdict, the forum for implementing such intentions has also been revived and made operational, he added.