United News of Bangladesh

The Appellate Division on Thursday (December 04, 2025) upheld a High Court (HC) order that declared the swearing-in and formation of the interim government valid, dismissing a leave-to-appeal petition over the government. A top court bench, led by Chief Justice Dr. Syed Refaat Ahmed, passed the order. During Wednesday’s (December 03, 2025) hearing, Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman argued that the writ challenging the government’s legality was based on a mistaken notion. Read more: Writ petition filed challenging provision of party symbols in the alliance's vote Lawyers representing the government said that the formation of a government following a popular uprising cannot be questioned, and that raising doubts before the Supreme Court, which was reconstituted after the government took oath, is impermissible. The petitioner’s counsel defended that during the August 5 uprising, the then Chief Justice and Appellate Division judges had sought shelter in the cantonment. Consequently, under Article 106 of the Constitution, they were unable to provide the President with advice regarding government formation, rendering the current government’s oath-taking and formation process illegal. In December last year, senior lawyer Mohsin Rashid first submitted a petition with the HC challenging the legality, which the court rejected, stating that the people’s approval legitimises the interim government and no one could question it. Read more: Writ petition filed seeking stay on election activities Following that, the petitioner sought leave to appeal in the Appellate Division, which was dismissed today (Thursday).

The High Court on Tuesday declared the amendment to article 116 of the constitution relating to the control and discipline of subordinate judiciary unconstitutional and void. The HC bench of Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury passed the order returning the full authority to the Supreme Court. With this order, the Supreme Court will have full authority over lower court judges, including matters related to their posting, promotion and granting of leave, restoring the judiciary’s administrative independence. Supreme Court Helpline receives over 1,000 calls in 3 months The judgment reinstates the original article 116 as it appeared in the constitution of 1972. With this, the control and disciplinary authority over judges of subordinate courts is now fully vested in the Supreme Court. The HC also asked the authorities concerned to establish a separate Secretariat within three months as per the proposal of the Supreme Court authority. Besides, the disciplinary rules created for the judges in 2017 have been declared contradictory to the constitution. As a result, the Supreme Court will no longer need to seek the President's approval for the transfer and disciplinary measures of judges. Advocate Mohammad Shishir Manir stood for the petitioner while Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman represented the state. Senior lawyer Sharif Bhuiyan was also present during the hearing as amicus curiae. Supreme Court upholds removal of judges through Judicial Council Speaking to reporters, Shishir Manir said the order has fully restored the Supreme Court’s control over judges, including their postings, promotions and leave approvals. From now on, the Ministry of Law will have no control over the transfer and discipline of judges in the name of the appropriate authority. They will be able to deliver judgments without fear, he said. After delivering a verdict, judges will no longer have to fear being transferred in the dead of night due to the wrath of the executive authority and the order is a historic order. Earlier on August 25, last year, seven lawyers of the Supreme Court filed a writ petition seeking to transfer the authority of controlling magistrates of subordinate courts (posting, promotion, and leave approval) from the President to the Supreme Court. They are Advocate Mohammad Saddam Hossain, Zahirul Islam, Mustafizur Rahman, Abdullah Sadique, Md Mizanul Haque, Aminul Islam Shakil and Zayed Bin Amzad. According to the petition, the 1972 Constitution originally vested the control of magistrates in subordinate courts with the Supreme Court. The1974 4th Amendment shifted this authority to the President. Later, the 5th Amendment inserted the clause "in consultation with the Supreme Court." When the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court declared the 5th Amendment unconstitutional, the 15th Amendment Act of 2011 reinstated the current provision in Article 116. The petitioners argue that giving the President control over magistrates compromises judicial independence. They believe the Supreme Court should retain full control over magistrates for a truly independent judiciary. On October 27, last year, the HC bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debashish Roy Chowdhury, issued a rule asking the government to explain as to why Article 116 of the Constitution, which grants the President the authority to control magistrates of subordinate courts, including matters of posting, promotion and leave approval, should not be declared unconstitutional. It also issued another rule asking the government to explain as to why a separate Secretariat for Judiciary should not be formed. The registrar general of the Supreme Court was asked to submit a progress report within 60 working days.  

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Sunday upheld the High Court order that had dismissed the defamation case filed against Chief Adviser Dr Yunus in Mymensingh. The three-member bench of the Appellate Division led by Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury passed the order after rejecting the leave-to-appeal petition filed by the High Court. The defamation case against Dr Yunus, the then managing director of Grameen Bank, was filed with Mymensingh court in 2010. In 2011, Dr Yunus filed a petition with the High Court seeking cancellation of the case. On October 24, last year, the High Court scrapped the case activities. Appointment of administrator to Nagad legal: High Court On July 2, the High Court published the full text of the verdict. The State counsel filed a leave-to-appeal petition. Additional Attorney General Aneek R Haque stood for the state while Advocate Taufiq Hossain stood for Dr Yunus. Nazrul Islam Chunnu, member of Mymensingh District Bar Association and joint secretary of Jasod filed the case against Dr Yunus in 2011 with Mymensingh court. According to the case statement, in 2007, Dr Yunus during an interview said that “Bangladeshi politicians engage in politics for money, not for public interest.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court is set to hear the leave-to-appeal petition, filed seeking stay on the lower court verdict and gazette notification issued by the Election Commission, announcing Ishraque Hossain as the mayor of Dhaka South City Corporation (DSCC), on Wednesday. Chamber Judge of the Appellate Division Justice Md Rezaul Haque on Tuesday fixed the date for hearing the appeal petition. Barrister Mahbub Uddin Khokon stood for Ishraque while Advocate Mohammad Hossain represented the petitioner. Earlier on Monday, a leave-to-appeal petition filed seeking stay on the lower court verdict and gazette notification issued by the Election Commission, announcing Ishraque as the mayor of Dhaka South City Corporation (DSCC). Senior Advocate Mohammad Hossain filed the leave-to-appeal petition at the Appellate Division. On May 22, the High Court dismissed a writ petition that sought a directive against administering the oath of office to BNP leader Ishraque as mayor of DSCC, clearing the way for his swearing-in. On May 14, Dhaka South resident Md Mamunur Rashid filed the writ petition seeking a stay on Ishraque’s swearing-in and disciplinary action against the judge who declared him mayor. SC orders reinstatement of 988 dismissed National University employees The petition also challenged the validity of the lower court’s verdict, which overturned the result of the 2020 DSCC polls. The same High Court bench had fixed May 22 for delivering its order on the matter after hearing arguments on May 21. Advocate Kazi Akbar Ali represented the petitioner during the hearing, while Ishraque was represented by his legal team, who welcomed the decision and said there was now no legal barrier to his taking oath as DSCC mayor. The development comes nearly two months after a lower court annulled the 2020 DSCC election result and declared Ishraque the BNP-nominated candidate, as the rightful mayor. On February 1, 2020, Awami League candidate Sheikh Fazle Noor Taposh was declared the winner of the DSCC election, defeating Ishraque by a margin of nearly 200,000 votes. However, on 27 March 2024, Judge Md Nurul Islam of the Dhaka First Joint District Judge and Electoral Tribunal nullified that result and declared Ishraque the victor. Following the verdict, the constitutional body sought legal advice from the Ministry of Law on 22 April regarding publication of the gazette. Subsequently, on 27 April, the Election Commission issued a gazette notification announcing Ishraque as the new mayor of DSCC. Meanwhile, supporters of Ishraque resumed their protests in front of Nagar Bhaban on Monday, demanding that he be handed over the responsibilities of DSCC mayor without further delay.

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration must assist in bringing Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. after he was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The Court rejected an emergency appeal from the administration. Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident and Salvadoran national, had a court order protecting him from deportation due to concerns he could be targeted by gangs in his home country. While the administration alleged that Abrego Garcia was affiliated with the MS-13 gang, his lawyers argued there is no evidence supporting that claim, and he has never been charged or convicted of any crime. EU pauses tariff retaliation for 90 days to align with Trump’s delay Despite admitting the deportation was a mistake, the administration contended it was no longer in a position to reverse the action, even though Abrego Garcia is currently imprisoned in a well-known El Salvador prison.   

Two newly-appointed justices of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Justice AKM Asaduzzaman and Justice Farah Mahbub, have paid a courtesy call on President Mohammed Shahabuddin at Bangabhaban. During the meeting on Thursday evening, the justices exchanged pleasantries with the President. President Mohammed Shahabuddin congratulated them and urged them to uphold justice in their new roles. On March 24, 2025, the president in consultation with the Chief Justice appointed the two High Court Division judges as the justices of the Appellate Division following recommendations from the Supreme Judicial Appointment Council. Extortion fuels unrest in CHT: Home Adviser On March 25, the newly appointed justices of the Appellate Division were sworn in by the Chief Justice on March 25.

The Appellate Division on Thursday ordered the authorities concerned to take steps to ensure that the headmasters of government primary schools across the country get the status of second-class gazetted officers in the 10th grade.The court ordered the authorities to ensure that approximately 30,000 headmasters get the same status and benefits as second-class gazetted officers from March 9, 2014. Cancellation of pry teachers’ recruitment: SC to hear the appeal petition MondayA 4-bench of the Appellate division led by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, passed the order.Senior lawyer Barrister Salah Uddin Dolon, representing the teachers, said that the benefits will be applicable from the date of the initial announcement in 2014.The move follows years of legal battles. In 2018, 45 headmasters, including the president of the Bangladesh Government Primary School Headmaster Association, Riaz Parvez, filed a writ in the High Court, seeking the implementation of the 2014 government announcement. On 9th March 2014, then prime minister Sheikh Hasina declared that headmasters of government primary schools would be upgraded to second-class status. No one can use ‘Doctor’ before name without MBBS, BDS degree: HC However, the Ministry of Primary and Mass Education later set the 11th grade for trained headmasters and the 12th grade for untrained ones, instead of the promised 10th grade.After the writ petition, the High Court issued a rule, and in February 2019, it ordered that headmasters (both trained and untrained) be promoted to the 10th grade. Barrister Dolon said that although the position of headmaster was initially classified as second-class, the pay scale did not match this status, with trained headmasters placed in the 11th grade and untrained ones in the 12th. This discrepancy was deemed unjust, as all other second-class employees were placed in the 10th grade.

A petition has been filed in the High Court challenging the president's power to pardon convicted offenders. Supreme Court lawyer Ishrat Hasan filed the petition on Monday. The petitioner has informed that a High Court bench, comprising Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debashish Roy Chowdhury, will hear the petition next week. The Cabinet Secretary, the Law Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Parliament Secretary, and the Secretary of the President's Office have been named as respondents in the petition. 2 men sentenced to 10 years for harassing minor, inciting suicide The petition requests the High Court to issue a rule asking why the president's power to pardon convicted offenders without a policy should not be declared unconstitutional. Additionally, the petition seeks directions to formulate a policy for the remission, suspension, or reduction of sentences under Article 49 of the Constitution. The petition also asks the court to rule on why the respondents' failure to formulate a policy for the implementation of this provision of the Constitution should not be declared illegal, unconstitutional, and contradictory to Articles 7, 27, and 31 of the Constitution. Article 49 of the Constitution states: "The president shall have the power to grant pardon, delay or suspend the execution of any sentence, and remit, suspend or reduce any sentence awarded by any court, tribunal, or other authority." The petition points out that under Article 49, the president’s power to grant pardons is unrestricted and lacks any formal policy. There is no clear policy governing who can be granted a pardon and on what basis, which the petition argues contradicts Articles 7, 27, 31, and 32 of the Constitution. Appellate Division defers 13th Amendment review hearing to Feb 9 The petition also highlights the misuse of this power, citing examples such as the pardons granted to individuals like the brother of the former army chief, Joseph, and Aslam Fakir. It has become common for sentences to be remitted for political reasons, which the petition claims constitutes an abuse of power. “For years, the president's power to grant pardons has been widely misused. During the previous government’s tenure, convicted murderers were pardoned through the improper use of this power. This has led to growing public concerns about the fairness of justice, with many feeling disillusioned with the notion of receiving fair legal treatment. To prevent the ongoing misuse of this power, the petition asserts that it is essential to formulate a clear policy,” said petitioner Ishrat Hasan.

The verdict on BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia's appeal in the Zia Orphanage Trust graft case will be delivered on Wednesday. The Appellate Division concluded the hearing on the appeals of Khaleda and two others against their conviction in the Zia Orphanage Trust graft case on Tuesday. After four days of hearing, a five-member bench of the Appellate Division led by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed fixed Wednesday to pronounce the judgment. The hearing on the appeals began on January 7, with the court addressing the separate appeals of Khaleda Zia, Sharafuddin Ahmed, and Kazi Salimul Haque Kamal. 63 lawyers get bail in case filed over Chinmoy issue Senior lawyers Joynul Abedin, Mahbub Uddin Khokon, M Badaruddin Badal, and Kaiser Kamal ,among others, represented Khaleda Zia during the hearing. Barrister Mohammad Ruhul Quddus Kajal appeared on behalf of Khaleda and Sharafuddin Ahmed, while senior lawyer SM Shahjahan represented Kazi Salimul Haque Kamal. Additional Attorney General Mohammad Arshadur Rauf and Aneekk R Haque represented the state while lawyer Asif Hasan represented the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). Khaleda, also a former prime minister, filed the leave to appeal petitions with the Appellate Division on March 14, 2019 through his lawyer challenging the HC verdict. Khaleda Zia was initially imprisoned on 8 February 2018, when a special court in Dhaka sentenced her to five years in prison for her involvement in the Zia Orphanage Trust graft incident. Later, in response to an appeal by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), the High Court on October 30 of the same year, raised her jail term to 10 years. Appellate Division upholds HC's dismissal of 5 labour cases against Dr Yunus The graft case The Zia Orphanage Trust graft case was filed by the Anti-Corruption Commission in July 2008, accusing Khaleda of misappropriating over Tk2.10 crore that was received as grants for orphans via a foreign bank. In August 2011, the ACC filed the Zia Charitable Trust graft case with Tejgaon Police Station accusing Khaleda and three others of raising funds for the trust from unknown sources and abusing power. Amid the coronavirus outbreak, the government temporarily freed Khaleda Zia from jail through an executive order by suspending her sentence on 25 March 2020, with the condition that she would stay at her Gulshan house and not leave the country. Clash on Ijtema ground: 21 including Saad’s follower get anticipatory bail Since then, her release term was extended every six months following the family's pleas. On August 6 last year, Khaleda Zia was completely freed by an order of President Mohammed Shahabuddin. The President passed the order under Article 49 of the Bangladesh Constitution, according to a gazette issued by the home ministry on August 6, last year.

A sharply divided Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s final bid to put his New York hush-money case on hold, clearing the way for him to be sentenced for felony crimes days before he returns to the presidency. The court’s 5-4 order allows Judge Juan M. Merchan to impose a sentence Friday on Trump, who was convicted in what prosecutors called an attempt to cover up a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels. Trump has denied any liaison with Daniels or any wrongdoing. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with the court’s three liberals in rejecting his emergency motion. The majority found his sentencing wouldn't be an insurmountable burden during the presidential transition since Merchan has indicated he won't give Trump jail time, fines or probation. Trump's attorneys had asked the sentencing be delayed as he appeals the verdict, but the majority of justices found his arguments can be handled as part of the regular appeals process. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would have delayed the sentencing, the order states. Trump said he respects the high court's order, and will pursue an appeal that could end up before the high court again. “I respect the court’s opinion — I think it was actually a very good opinion for us because you saw what they said, but they invited the appeal and the appeal is on the bigger issue. So, we’ll see how it works out,” he said at a dinner with Republican governors at his private club in Florida. The defeat comes after the conservative-majority court has handed Trump major victories over the past year, ensuring that states could not kick him off the ballot because of the 2021 attack on the Capitol and giving him immunity from prosecution over some acts he took as president in a ruling that delayed an election-interference case against him. The justices could also be faced with weighing other parts of the sweeping conservative changes he's promised after he takes office. In the push to delay the New York sentencing, Trump’s attorneys argued he is immune from criminal proceedings as president-elect and said some evidence used in the Manhattan trial violated last summer’s immunity decision. Read: Judge schedules Trump's sentencing in hush money case for January 10, indicating no jail time At the least, they have said, the sentencing should be delayed while their appeals play out to avoid distracting Trump during the White House transition. Prosecutors pushed back, saying there’s no reason for the court to take the “extraordinary step” of intervening in a state case now. Trump’s attorneys didn't show that an hourlong virtual hearing would be a serious disruption, and a pause would likely mean pushing the case past the Jan. 20 inauguration, creating a delay that could last at least through his presidency. “We brought a case. A jury of ordinary New Yorkers returned 34 guilty verdicts,” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said at an unrelated news conference Thursday afternoon. “Our function right now primarily is to continue to give voice to that verdict and respect, as a principle -- bedrock principle of the administration of justice -- that the jury’s voice must not be rubbed out.” Trump’s attorneys went to the justices after New York courts refused to postpone sentencing, including the state’s highest court on Thursday. Judges in New York have found that the convictions on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to personal matters rather than Trump’s official acts as president. Daniels says she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. He denies it. Trump’s attorneys called the case politically motivated, and they said sentencing him now would be a “grave injustice” that threatens to disrupt the presidential transition as the Republican prepares to return to the White House. Read more: Appeals court upholds Donald Trump's gag order as he again presses judge to exit hush money case Trump is represented by D. John Sauer, his pick to be the solicitor general, who represents the government before the high court. Sauer also argued for Trump in the separate criminal case charging him with trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which resulted in the Supreme Court’s immunity opinion. Defense attorneys cited that opinion in arguing some of the evidence used against him in the hush money trial should have been shielded by presidential immunity. That includes testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made while he was in office. The decision comes a day after Justice Alito confirmed that he took a phone call from Trump the day before the president-elect’s lawyers filed their emergency motion before the high court. The justice said the call was about a clerk, not any upcoming or current cases, but the unusual communication prompted calls for Alito to recuse himself, including from the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Justices make their own decisions about whether to recuse and Alito still weighed in on the case.