Order to Accept Judges’ Disciplinary Regulations Gazette Suspended

On 3 January 2018, an Appellate Division bench of five judges, led by then Acting Chief Justice Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah, issued an order accepting a highly controversial gazette notification concerning disciplinary regulations for magistrates and lower-court judges.

👩‍⚖️ Current Review and Suspension

A six-judge bench of the Appellate Division, presided over by Chief Justice Dr Syed Refaat Ahmed, has now suspended the earlier order acknowledging the disciplinary regulations gazette. This decision came after hearing a review petition and granting leave for appeal.

⚖️ Representation at the Review Hearing

• For the petitioners: Barrister Mohammad Shishir Monir
• For the State: Attorney General Mohammad Asaduzzaman

Upon suspension of the 2018 gazette order, Barrister Monir stated that it removes any legal barriers to the ongoing High Court hearings and rulings concerning disciplinary proceedings under Article 116 of the Constitution. Moreover, he clarified that the gazette’s provisions remain effectively in force to prevent any regulatory “vacuum” for subordinate-court judges.

🏛️ Historical Context of Lower-Court Judges & Discipline Governance

🗓️ Timeline of Key Developments

⚖️ Key Directives for Judicial Independence (1999)

The Appellate Division’s 12-point directive included:

1. Judicial functions distinct from civil service—must remain separate.
2. Judicial officers must not be executive officers.
3. Judicial officers shall not be recruited via PSC under Civil Service Order 1980.
4. Judicial Service Commission rules must be established expeditiously.
5. Entire judicial recruitment and postings to be regulated by President, under Article 113.
6. Establishment of a judicial pay commission.
7. Regulation of magistrates under Article 116 to be supervised by the Supreme Court.
8. Judiciary to be independent of executive and parliamentary control.
9. Budgetary autonomy of the judiciary—as designed and allocated by the Supreme Court.
10. Judicial members fall under the Administrative Court.
11. Constitutional amendments not required, but may be used to strengthen separation.
12. Judicial pay commission recommendations to the President are binding pending acceptance.

Despite the formation of the Judicial Service Commission in 2007, many directives remained unimplemented.

🧾 Disciplinary Gazette Controversy

• In response to the 1999 victimbl guidelines, the Ministry of Law drafted disciplinary regulations and sent them to the Supreme Court.
• Former Chief Justice S K Sinha objected, returning them to the Law Ministry, citing procedural impropriety.
• A revised draft was submitted but remained under discussion due to ongoing differences between government and judiciary.
• The controversy intensified in 2018 with the 16th constitutional amendment repeal. CJ Sinha went on leave, resigned, and the new bench accepted the contested gazette—prompting a review petition by eight senior lawyers.

🔍 Review Hearing Insights

Barrister Monir commented during the review:

“We argued that this disciplinary code was imposed by ‘assaulting’ the judiciary under the leadership of the Acting Chief Justice. Nine other judges had opposed it earlier. It was a coercive use of the judiciary to compel issuance of the gazette. It sets a dangerous precedent and must be reviewed swiftly.”

The suspension of the 2018 order underscores the court’s serious concern over judicial autonomy and the integrity of procedural norms. While the contentious gazette remains in suspended limbo, the court’s action leaves the ongoing High Court review concerning disciplinary regulation of subordinate judges unhindered.