Dinajpur Municipality Mayor Syed Jahangir Alam appeared before the court on Thursday and offered an unconditional apology to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for making derogatory remarks against a judge of the division. Mayor Jahangir appeared before the five-member bench of the Appellate Division led by Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddique and apologised. Also read : Supreme Court to hear Dr Yunus's petition on July 23 The court also exempted him from appearing before the court in person and set October 12 for the next hearing. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on August 17 summoned the mayor and asked him to appear before the court on August 24 in person for making derogatory remarks against a judge. The court also asked the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) to remove the video containing the mayor's remarks from the internet. Also read : US Supreme Court strikes down race-based college admissions Four lawyers of the Supreme Court filed a contempt of court petition over the mayor making derogatory comments against Chamber Judge of the Appellate Division M Enayetur Rahim centring the verdict against BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia. The four lawyers are advocates Harun-or-Rashid, Mahfuzur Rahman Roman, Md Moniruzzaman Rana and Shafique Raihan Shaon. The SC also issued a rule asking the government to explain why Mayor Jahangir should not be punished under the contempt of court rule and why directives should not be given to issue a show cause notice against him. Also read : Supreme Court Bar secretary’s office vandalised: 25 lawyers granted anticipatory bail Advocate Shaha Manjurul Haque stood for the petitioners, while Attorney General AM Amin Uddin and Barrister Ruhul Kuddus represented the state and Mayor Jahangir, respectively. Jahangir Alam was elected mayor of Dinajpur municipality in 2011.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (SC) on Sunday (August 20, 2023) ordered to continue the trial proceedings after dismissing a petition submitted by Nobel laureate and Chairman of Grameen Communications, Dr Muhammad Yunus, and three others in a case over violation of labour law. A regular and full bench consisting of seven justices of the Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddique passed the order after hearing the petition, said the defendants’ counsel, Barrister Abdullah Al Mamun. On September 9, 2021, Labour Inspector Arifuzzaman, of the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments, filed the case with Dhaka's 3rd Labour Court. Read: Labour law violation case: SC orders disposal of rule on charge framing against Dr Yunus within two weeks Other accused in the case are: Ashraful Hasan, Managing Director of Grameen Telecom, and its directors, Nurjahan Begum and Shahjahan. According to the case, in an inspection visit to Grameen Telecom, inspectors of the department found that 101 workers and staff who were supposed to be permanent were not made so. No participation fund and welfare fund were formed for them and five percent of the company’s profit was not provided to the workers following the law. Read: Appellate Division orders Dr Yunus to pay NBR Tk 12 crore tax on donations Later on December 7, Prof Yunus filed a petition with the High Court seeking scrapping of the case. On December 12, HC stayed the procedure of a case for six months. On June 6 this year, the Labour Court ordered the trial in the case through framing chargesheets against the accused. Later, Dr Yunus filed a petition with the HC seeking cancellation of the charge framing order. Subsequently, on August 8, the HC rejected the petition. Read more: Supreme Court to hear Dr Yunus's petition on July 23 Later, the Nobel laureate filed the petition with the Appellate Division seeking cancellation of the charge framing order. The division led by the chief justice cleared the petition after hearing it on Sunday.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court today (July 23, 2023) ordered Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus to pay Tk 12 crore tax on donations to the National Bureau of Revenue (NBR) after dismissing a leave-to-appeal in this regard. A four-member bench of the Appellate Division, headed by Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddique, passed the order after hearing the leave-to-appeal submitted by Dr Yunus against a High Court verdict. Attorney General AM Amin Uddin represented the state during the hearing, while Fida M Kamal and Barrister Abdullah Al Mamun stood for Dr Yunus. Earlier on June 21, a leave-to-appeal was filed against the High Court verdict. On July 9, the chamber court set July 17 for hearing in the Appellate Division. Read: HC asks Dr Yunus to pay  over Tk 12 crore as donation tax On July 17, the Appellate Division adjourned till July 23 the hearing on the appeal against the High Court verdict. According to the petition, NBR served three separate notices claiming Tk 12,28,74,000 tax against Tk 61.57 crore donation during 2011-2012 fiscal year, Tk 1.60 crore tax against Tk 8.15 crore donation in FY 2012-2013, and Tk 1.50 crore tax against Tk 7 crore donation in FY 2013-2014 as per the Donation Tax-1990. Read: Trial against Dr Yunus to continue in labour court: Appellate Division Dr Yunus challenged the validity of NBR's notices and filed a case in the Appellate Tribunal. According to him, NBR cannot claim tax against donations as per law. On November 20, 2014, his application was rejected. Then in 2015, he filed three income tax reference cases in the High Court. After that, the High Court ruled on May 31 that the tax imposed by the NBR against the money that he had donated to three trusts was valid. After the verdict on May 31, Attorney General AM Amin Uddin told reporters that Dr Yunus had donated Tk 77 crore to three institutions. “The petitions were dismissed. Now the tax demanded by the NBR will have to be paid. The NBR had demanded more than Tk 15 crore. He (Dr Yunus) has already given around Tk 3 crore. Now the remaining Tk 12 crore will have to be paid in taxes.” Read more: HC stays labour law violation case against Dr Yunus for 6 months

The High Court on Sunday granted anticipatory bail to 25 lawyers including Barrister Mahbub Uddin Khokon in a case filed over vandalising the office of the Supreme Court Bar secretary centering the election of Supreme Court Bar Association. The HC bench of Justice Md Salim and Justice Md Riaz Uddin Khan passed the order till the submission of the police report in the case. Senior lawyers Barrister M Amir Ul Islam and Barrister AJ Mohammad Ali stood for the petitioners. On May 16, a scuffle took place among the lawyers at the office of Supreme Court Bar secretary. The office was also vandalised. Also read: HC summons N’ganj DC, DoE officials for not complying with directives to control air pollution Assistant Superintendent of Supreme Court Bar, Md Rafiqullah filed a case against 25 identified lawyers and 150 unidentified lawyers with Shahbagh Police Station on that day. Charges including vandalism, harassing female lawyers and stealing of a gold chain worth Tk one lakh, cash Tk 50,000 and a watch worth Tk 15,000 were also brought against them. The Supreme Court Bar Association was held on May 15 and 16 amid chaos. Awami League panel won in all 14 posts of the election. The BNP panel remained off from casting votes but they brought out a procession on May 16.  

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Thursday (May 18, 2023) rejected a writ petition filed challenging the legality of the election of Md Shahabuddin as president of the country. The eight-member bench of the Appellate Division, led by Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddique passed the order and fined the writ petitioner Advocate MA Aziz Tk one lakh “for wasting the court’s time” by filling an “illogical writ petition.” The other members of the bench are: Justice Md. Nuruzzaman, Justice Obaidul Hassan, Justice Borhanuddin, Justice M. Enayetur Rahim, Justice Md. Ashfaqul Islam, Justice Md. Abu Zafor Siddique, Justice Jahangir Hossain. Also read: Supreme Court to conduct judicial activities physically from Wednesday Advocate MA Aziz Khan stood for the petitioner while Attorney General MA Amin Uddin represented the state. On March 7, a writ petition was filed challenging the legality of the process for electing Md Shahabuddin as president and publication of the gazette notification by the Election Commission. The writ petition also sought a stay order of the operation of the gazette notification issued by the Election Commission. On March 15, the High Court rejected the writ petition. On March 21, an appeal petition was filed against the HC order that has rejected the writ petition. Read more: Lawyers can play a big role to ensure good governance: President

At least 10  journalists and lawyers were injured as police charged batons on them on the Supreme Court premises amid scuffle between pro-Awami League and pro BNP lawyers over the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) election on Wednesday. The two-day voting in SCBA election started around 10 am but it was suspended immediately when some pro-BNP lawyers staged demonstrations demanding formation of election conducting committee led by a neutral person. When the situation turned chaotic, police charged batons on the lawyers and journalists, leaving 10 people injured, said Barrister Kaisar Kamal, BNP law affairs secretary. Barrister Kaisar Kamal said, “Police charged baton on some lawyers including Barrister Mahbub Uddin Khokon and Ruhul Kuddus Kajal. We have informed it to the Chief Justice.” Jabed Akter, reporter of ATN News, Ibrahim Hossain, cameraperson of Boishakhi TV, Abdullah Al Maruf, multimedia reporters of Manabjamin, Humayun Kabir, cameraperson of  ATN Bangla, Solaiman Swapan, cameraman Somoy TV, Mehedi Hasan, cameraman DBC, Fazlul Haque, reporter of Jago News and SM Nur Mohammad, reporter of Ajker Patrika were among the injured. Of them, Jabed Akter was taken to Dhaka Medical College and Hospital. A seven-member sub-committee led by senior lawyer Mansurul Haque Chowdhury, was formed earlier for conducting the election. But he resigned from the post on personal ground on March 13. Read more: Supreme Court Bar Association election underway Later, pro-Awami League Ainjibi Parishad formed a sub-committee led by freedom fighter Maniruzzaman while the pro-BNP Bangladesh Jatiyatabadi Ainjibi Oikya Panel formed another committee headed by ASM Moktar Kabir. Besides, miscreants tore down 3000 ballot papers sometime on Tuesday night. A tense situation has been prevailing in the Supreme Court area over the issue.  

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court today rejected review petitions of the two death-row convicts in Rajshahi University Professor S Taher Ahmed murder case. A bench of eight justices, led by Chief justice Hasan Foez Siddique, passed the order, rejecting review petitions filed by the two death-row convicts. With the order, there is no bar to the execution of the two condemned convicts, and they will also get a chance to seek mercy from the president. Besides, the Appellate Division also rejected the review petition of another convict, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in the case. Attorney General AM Amin Uddin and Additional Attorney General Sheikh Mohamamd Morshed were present during the review petition hearing. The two death-row convicts in the case are Dr Mia Mohammad Mohiuddin, associate professor of Rajshahi University’s Geology and Mining department, and Md Jahangir Alam, caretaker of Professor S Taher’s residence. Also read; RU prof murder: SC upholds death penalty of two The two sentenced to life term are Nazmul Alam and Abdus Salam, relatives of caretaker Jahangir Alam. Prof Taher’s body was recovered from a drain near his residence, two days after he went missing on February 1, 2006. On February 3, a murder case was filed at Motihar police station in Rajshahi, following a complaint lodged by his son Sanzid. A Rajshahi Speedy Trial Tribunal on May 22, 2008, sentenced four people to death in the case and acquitted two others, including former RU Chhatra Shibir president Mahbubul Alam Salehi. Later on May 13, 2013, the High Court upheld the death penalty of Mohiuddin and Jahangir, but sentenced Salam and Nazmul to imprisonment until death. After the order, Mohiuddin, Jahangir and Salam moved the apex court.  

The Supreme Court is taking up a partisan legal fight over President Joe Biden's plan to wipe away or reduce student loans held by millions of Americans. The high court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, is hearing arguments on Tuesday in two challenges to the plan, which has so far been blocked by Republican-appointed judges on lower courts. Arguments are scheduled to last two hours but likely will go much longer. The public can listen in on the court’s website. Twenty-six million people have applied, and 16 million have been approved to have up to $20,000 in federal student loans forgiven, the Biden administration says. The program is estimated to cost $400 billion over 30 years. “I’m confident the legal authority to carry that plan is there,” Biden said on Monday, at an event to mark Black History Month. The president, who once doubted his own authority to broadly cancel student debt, first announced the program in August. Legal challenges quickly followed. Also Read: Cheapest countries for Bangladeshi students for higher studies Republican-led states and lawmakers in Congress, as well as conservative legal interests, are lined up against the plan as a clear violation of Biden's executive authority. Democratic-led states and liberal interest groups are backing the Democratic administration in urging the court to allow the plan to take effect. Without it, loan defaults would dramatically increase when the pause on loan payments ends no later than this summer, the administration says. Payments were halted in 2020 as part of the response to the coronavirus pandemic. The administration says a 2003 law, commonly known as the HEROES Act, allows the secretary of education to waive or modify the terms of federal student loans in connection with a national emergency. The law was primarily intended to keep service members from being worse off financially while they fought in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nebraska and other states that sued say the plan is not necessary to keep the rate of defaults roughly where it was before the pandemic. The 20 million borrowers who have their entire loans erased would get a “windfall” that will leave them better off than they were before the pandemic, the states say. Dozens of borrowers came from across the country to camp out near the court on a soggy Monday evening in hopes of getting a seat for the arguments. Among them was Sinyetta Hill, who said that Biden's plan would erase all but about $500 of the $20,000 or so she has in student loans. “I was 18 when I signed up for college. I didn’t know it was going to be this big of a burden. No student should have to deal with this. No person should have to deal with this,” said Hill, 22, who plans to study law after she graduates from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in May. Biden's plan could meet a frosty reception in the courtroom. The court's conservatives have been skeptical of other Biden initiatives related to the pandemic, including vaccine requirements and pauses on evictions. Those were billed largely as public health measures intended to slow the spread of COVID-19. The loan forgiveness plan, by contrast, is aimed at countering the economic effects of the pandemic. The national emergency is expected to end May 11, but the administration says the economic consequences will persist, despite historically low unemployment and other signs of economic strength. In addition to the debate over the authority to forgive student debt, the court also will confront whether the states and two individuals whose challenge also is before the justices have the legal right, or standing, to sue. Parties generally have to show that they would suffer financial harm and benefit from a court ruling in their favor. A federal judge initially found that the states would not be harmed and dismissed their lawsuit before an appellate panel said the case could proceed. Of the two individuals who sued in Texas, one has student loans that are commercially held and the other is eligible for $10,000 in debt relief, not the $20,000 maximum. They would get nothing if they win their case. A decision is expected by late June.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court today stayed the High Court order that had asked the authorities concerned to give stall allotment to Adarsha Prokashoni to participate in the month-long Ekushey Boi Mela on condition. A four-member bench of the Appellate Division led by Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddique passed the order after hearing a petition. With the latest order, Adarsha Prokashoni will not be allowed to participate in the book fair. Also read: HC asks Bangla Academy for stall allotment to Adarsha Prokashoni on condition Advocate Anik R Haque stood for Adarsha Prokashoni while Senior Advocate Attorney General AM Amin Uddin represented Bangla Academy. On February 8, the HC bench of Justice Md Khasruzzaman and Justice Md Iqbal Kabir passed an order asking the authorities concerned to give stall allotment to Adarsha Prokashoni to participate in the month-long Ekushey Book Fair on condition. Counsel Anik said the court asked the Bangla Academy to give the stall allotment on condition that it cannot keep three books —‘Bangalir Mediocrity’r Sandhane’ by Faham Abdus Salam, ‘Unnoyan Bibhram’ by Zia Hasan and ‘Oprotiroddho Unnoyane Obhaboniyo Kothamala’ by Foyez Ahmad Taiyeb. Read More: Tracing the Roots of Ekushey Boi Mela Later, Bangla Academy filed a petition challenging the HC order. On Monday (February 13), the Chamber Judge of the Appellate Division Justice M Enayetur Rahim set February 15 for hearing on the petition. Advocate Anik said that though the books were not blacklisted or banned, the participation of the publishing house was restricted involving the books. Read More: Boi Mela, Pahela Falgun & Valentine's: Visitors around DU campus spoilt for choice   The writers of 600 books, which were published from the Adarsha Prokashoni, will be deprived of taking part in the month-long fair, he said. Owner Mahabubur Rahman filed a petition with the HC seeking intervention after authorities disclosed the names of the participating publishing houses except Adarsha Prokashoni on January 12.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Sunday (January 15, 2023) upheld the High Court order granting bail to Sonia Akter Smrity, a Mahila Dal leader of Rajbari, in a case filed over posting "offensive" content on Facebook against Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. A four-member bench of the Appellate Division led by Chief Justice Hasan Foyez Siddiqui passed the order withdrawing the stay order of the Chamber Court. Senior Advocate AJ Mohammad Ali, Barrister Kayser Kamal and Barrister Ruhul Quddus Kazal appeared in the court for Smriti. Additional Attorney General Sheikh Mohammad Morshed represented the state. Read more: Defaming PM: Chamber Judge stays bail to Rajbari Mahila Dal leader Now there is no bar to the release of the Mahila Dal leader, Barrister Kayser Kamal said. Smrity, wife of Md Khokon Mia of No 3 Beradanga area of Rajbari Sadar, is a member of Jatiyatabadi Mahila Dal’s Rajbari district unit. On November 2 last year, Chamber Judge of the Appellate Division, M Enayetur Rahim, stayed the bail order granted by the High Court till November 7. The High Court granted interim bail to Smrity in the case on November 1. Read more: Rajbari Mohila Dal member arrested under DSA for 'comment on PM' Police arrested Smrity on October 4 in a case filed under the Digital Security Act (DSA) for posting offensive status on Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on Facebook. Arefin Chowdhury, member secretary of Rajbari district Bangabandhu Sangskritik Jote, lodged an FIR against her. On October 5, Judge Kaisun Nahar Surma of Rajbari No 1 Judicial Magistrate Court rejected Smrity’s bail plea and ordered to send her to jail. On October 26, Rajbari Sessions Judge Court also denied bail to Smrity which prompted her to seek bail from the HC. Read More: Fardin's death: Bushra finally granted bail In her bail plea, Smrity requested the HC to consider her as a woman and a mother of two children. According to the FIR, the accused BNP activist made "insulting remarks" about PM Sheikh Hasina, also president of the ruling Awami League, from her personal Facebook account in two separate statuses on August 31 and September 28.