Judges
I refer to the suggestion of Rayhan Uddin from Chittagong under the above heading (June 12) to amend Article 97 of the Constitution because it apparently conflicts with Article 96. The recommendation of Supreme Judicial Council is required to remove any Judge (Article 96) whereas the President can remove the Chief Justice without any such recommendation if the President is satisfied that the "Chief Justice, on account of absence, illness, or any other cause is unable to perform his functions".
The objection of Mr. Rayhan is to the phrase 'any other cause' which implies reserve power lying with the President to remove the Chief Justice and hence the necessity for amendment of Article 97.
As I learnt from my studies for an LLB degree from University of London many years ago, legal interpretation is a specialist minefield, and it is often difficult to understand by laymen with common sense. For instance in common parlance "any other cause" can be an open wide clause embracing all, however this will thwart the legal intention and cause the Article to fail. In legal practice therefore such clauses are given 'restricted meaning' by the courts in many cases to make definite sense and avoid contradiction. And clues to such restrictive interpretation follows from the words preceding any such wide clause, and in the case of article 97 these words are "absence and illness". So that "any other cause" would have to be something of the nature of absence or illness, and not be something completely different such as say "incompetence, or corruption or not toeing the government's line", etc.
So in my humble opinion I do not think the Article 97 requires amendment on this score.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments