What does judicial independence mean?

A society is bound to crumble if its judiciary - the place for justice - suffers from trust-deficit and becomes an apparatus for injustice. "The state of Judiciary in Bangladesh is turning into a glass-house and may crumble at any time", according to a report published in a national English daily on April 10, 2010, opined former Chief Justice Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury while expressing his deep concern over the 'proposed' amendment that demeans the power of the Anti-Corruption Commission. Different national and international bodies have questioned this amendment. "It looks that a section of people [the people of the ruling alliance] is beyond the jurisdiction of the judiciary", Chowdhury, according to the same report, added. The state of the Bangladesh judiciary has been depicted in an issue last year of the Journal of Asian Culture and History published from Canada: "The common practice in Bangladesh is not to take any legal action against the criminals of the ruling party or alliance, while often harsh legal actions are taken against the opposition leaders and activists though sometimes there might be no evidence of corruption against them. The legal apparatus in Bangladesh, therefore, largely serves the interest of the ruling elites, and provides a powerful tool for them to abate and crush the political opponents". (Vo. 2, No. 2, July 2010, p. 64). Since Bangladesh gained its independence in 1971, the country has experienced an on-and-of, fragile democratic culture and sustained periods of military rule. Throughout that time, however, Bangladesh has also had a vibrant civil society and a robust and independent judiciary. In the last couple of years, as confirmed by various credible sources and according to reports appearing in sections of the media from time to time, the independence of the judiciary has been compromised through appointment of judges, chosen on political considerations, to the High Court division of the Supreme Court. The benches have also been re-organised reportedly on political considerations, particularly in the most important writ and bail benches, alongwith the Appellate Division by appointing judges, superseding other senior ones. This was not the custom of the highest judiciary of the country. Undue intervention have furthermore been alleged in cases of some judicial decisions through the office of the chief law officer and that of public prosecutors. Any political appointment is bound to impair the image of the judiciary. Re-structuring of High Court benches, if it is purported to decide politically all key responsibilities such as power to hear writ petitions and to award stay orders, does also run afoul of the needs for proper dispensation of justice. The premier judiciary has to maintain its high morale under all circumstances. It is worthwhile to note here apropos the removal of the nation's only Nobel laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus from Grameen Bank. The Economist recently wrote, "Bangladesh's courts have become increasingly supine when it comes to the government. It would be a brave judge, willing to forfeit promotion, say, who would dare give an order in support of Mr Yunus's position." Meanwhile, the committee that was formed by the government under its Ministry of Home Affairs has decided to withdraw what it calls "politically motivated cases." The public perception about this move is that it is also "politically motivated", as charges against most opposition politicians have been kept and even been consolidated further. Furthermore, it is to be regrettably noted that hardly any case against the influential members of the ruling regime, regardless of the magnitude of crimes, is, as some media reports clearly indicate, accepted in the court of law. But political opponents are routinely denied bails and detained on even laughable cases. The demand of the people for functioning of an independent judiciary must not remain an illusion because of any machination by the vested interests. None involved in making of law or dispensation of justice should work under direct influence, andor at the behest, of the any vested quarters. Controlling and using the judiciary for consolidating power is nowhere a strength of any government. Rather, it is a great source of weakness and a disaster for any nation in the long run. This key institution must not crumble; otherwise, it will not take time for any nation to crumble itself. Dr. M. Saidul Islam is an assistant professor of Sociology at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. This is an edited and abridged version of a write-up sent by him. He can be reached at: msaidul@ntu.edu.sg