A procedural mix-up by Law Minister Asaduzzaman created confusion in the Jatiya Sangsad, resulting in the same bill being raised multiple times while another listed bill was not introduced at all.
During the session, the Deputy Speaker, who was presiding over the House, called on the law minister to place the Supreme Court Judges Appointment (Repeal) Bill, 2026 as per the supplementary agenda.
However, instead of introducing the specified bill, the minister presented the Supreme Court Secretariat (Repeal) Bill, 2026.
The bill was accepted by the House, but at the time of acceptance, the Speaker mistakenly referred to it as the judges’ appointment bill, triggering murmurs among lawmakers.
Noticing the confusion, the Speaker reminded the minister that the House was supposed to be considering the judges’ appointment bill.
The minister then acknowledged his mistake and sought to withdraw the bill.
However, when asked again to present the correct bill, the law minister once more raised the Supreme Court Secretariat (Repeal) Bill, 2026, which the Speaker again treated as the judges’ appointment bill.
Later in the session, the Bangladesh Law Officers (Amendment) Bill was placed and passed by voice vote.
Subsequently, the Deputy Speaker once again invited the law minister to introduce the Supreme Court Secretariat (Repeal) Bill, 2026 under the supplementary agenda, and the minister complied.
As a result, the same bill was effectively introduced three times during the sitting.
Meanwhile, despite being called twice, the Supreme Court Judges Appointment (Repeal) Bill, 2026 was not introduced in the House.
Addressing the issue, the law minister admitted that an error had occurred and initially expressed regret, attributing the mistake to the Speaker.
However, a review of the proceedings indicated that the presiding chair had followed the agenda correctly, while the confusion stemmed from the minister’s handling of the bills.
The incident also led to deviations from standard parliamentary practice, where bills are typically introduced and then passed in separate stages.
In this case, elements of introduction and passage appeared to overlap, adding to the procedural irregularities.