Judiciary ought to be non-controversial
According to the media reports, our Nobel laureate's counsels expressed no confidence in a High Court bench during a hearing of his writ petition challenging the legality of the Bangladesh Bank order that removed him from the post of managing director. The expression of no confidence was prompted by the court's delay to issue a rule upon the government and Bangladesh Bank to explain why their decision to remove the Nobel laureate should not be declared illegal. His learned counsels apprehend that their client will not get justice from the court, since the court were holding hearing on his petition for so long without issuing any rule. Moreover, they have apprehended that the petition will be rejected.
The judiciary's role is not confined to interpreting the law as wise counsel claimed. It has the power to review the laws and ensure that they conform to the provisions of the Constitution.
As a law-abiding citizen, I am deeply pained at the counsels' stand supporting those who have plundered our apex court by illegal criticisms. Not only have they violated the law but also resorted to violence on the streets to intimidate the government. The judiciary cannot always do the job of the executive. The Constitution can not be amended as and when someone wishes to. Any measure the court comes up with should ensure that it does not help the bigwigs to get away. All violations take place with the blessings of politicians.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments