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.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has started the hearing of the appeal filed by BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia in the Zia Orphanage Trust case.A full bench of the Appellate Division led by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed fixed tomorrow for resuming the hearing .Replying to the court’s question from where did the funds for the Zia Orphanage Trust came, Barrister Kaiser Kamal, a counsel of Khaleda, said the Kuwait government provided the funds in the name of the late President Ziaur Rahman and the money was deposited in a bank and the amount has been increasing over time. The fund was allocated to establish two institutions in Bogura and Bagerhat in Ziaur Rahman’s name. Khaleda to go to London on Jan 7 for treatment: FakhrulReplying to another question, Kaiser Kamal said that the process to establish the two institutions started in 2006.Senior lawyer Zainul Abedin also said the money is in the bank and is continuously growing.Barrister Kamal said, "In this case, Khaleda Zia was imprisoned through fabricated charges. On the first day of the hearing, we presented arguments in favor of canceling her sentence. The hearing will continue on Wednesday. We hope she will receive justice."Earlier on November 4, the court set November 10 for hearing on her leave to appeal pleas. After hearing, the court fixed November 11 for passing an order.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. BNP standing committee to meet Khaleda Sunday ahead of London tripKhaleda 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.The graft caseThe 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 four people, including Khaleda, 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.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.

Bangladesh Supreme Court has launched another helpline number to provide quick and smooth judicial services and to address complaints and suggestions from the people. The new number is +88 01795373680. The helpline operates from 10am to 4pm, Sunday to Thursday, except on public holidays. An officer from the Supreme Court Registry is available during these hours to offer help and guidance. Service seekers are now encouraged to use this new number, along with the existing helpline, to report any issues or offer suggestions. Govt appoints four prosecutors to ICT Earlier, the Supreme Court officially launched the helpline service on 26 September 2024. Service recipients or trial seekers visiting the Bangladesh Supreme Court can contact the helpline number +88 01316154216 via phone call or WhatsApp for necessary information and advice regarding services. The helpline was introduced to assist individuals facing obstacles in receiving services at any branch of the Supreme Court Registry.

The Supreme Court Helpline has received a total of 1003 phone calls from people across the country in three months since the launch of the helpline services in September last. Out of the total calls, 604 people sought legal advice, while 344 inquired of case-related information. The helpline picked all calls immediately and responded rightly to their queries, said a press release on Wednesday. Besides, the helpline recorded 55 complaints regarding irregularities, bribery, negligence, delays in service delivery, and misconduct in the past two months. Among these, 22 complaints were specifically related to delays in legal service delivery, while 33 others related to irregularities, bribery, negligence and misconduct. Out of  33 complaints, 12 are against district court judges, 3 against officials and employees of the High Court division, 12 against district court employees and 6 against lawyers. Read:  Supreme Court launches helpline Each complaint was addressed promptly, and the concerned officials and staff were held accountable. On the instruction of Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, the helpline service was launched on September 26, 2024. The helpline platform (+88 01316154216) receives calls from 11am to 4pm on Sunday-Thursday (working days).

The High Court on Tuesday turned down a writ petition filed seeking investigation into allegations of graft against some 51 people including judges and staff of lower courts across the country. The HC bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury passed the order after hearing the petition. Advocate Md Amimul Ehsan Zobair, a Supreme Court lawyer, stood for the petition while Additional Attorney General Arshadur Rauf represented the state. Writ seeks investigations into graft allegations against 51 judicial staff, inc judges The court said they did not find any such ACC report based on which media published report about involvement of judges and staff of the lower courts in graft and it is not acceptable without cent percent assurance. Advocate Md Amimul Ehsan Zobair filed the writ petition on Monday. The Secretary of the Law Ministry, Registrar General of the Supreme Court, and the Chairman of Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) were made respondents to the writ petition. A report was published in a national daily headlined 'Unbelievable wealth of 51 judges and staff’ and the writ was filed attaching the newspaper report.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a High Court order that had sentenced BNP acting chairman Tarique Rahman to seven years jail in a money laundering case. The full bench of the Appellate Division led by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed passed the order after hearing a petition. Barrister Kaisar Kamal and Barrister Sheikh Mohammad Zakir Hossain stood for the petitioner while Advocate Asif Hasan represented the Anti-Corruption Commission. HC order declaring ‘Joy Bangla’ as national slogan suspended Barrister Kaisar Kamal said the Appellate Division approve to move for a leave-to-appeal against the HC order and asked to submit the brief text of the verdict to the ACC within December 31. The court also stayed the lower court order that had sentenced businessperson Gias Uddin Mamun in the same case. ACC filed the case with Cantonment Police Station on October 26, 2009 and police submitted chargesheet against Tarique and Mamun on July 6, 2010. Court pressed charges against them on August 8, 2011. According to the case statement, Mamun siphoned off Tk 20,41,25,843 from Khadiza Islam, chairman of a construction company limited in the name of installing 80 MW power plant in Tongi. Mamun deposited the money to his bank account in Singapore and Tarique spent Tk 3.78 crore from the money. Palak placed on three-day remand again On November 17, 2013, a lower court convicted Tarique and sentenced him to seven years of  jail in the case. The court also fined Mamun Tk 40 crore and asked the government to confiscate the money which was laundered to Singapore. On December 5, 2013, the ACC filed an appeal on July 21, 2016. The High Court sentenced Tarique to seven years imprisonment and fined him Tk 20 crore in the case. It also upheld the lower order sentencing seven-year jail to Mamun.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has upheld the High Court's decision to grant bail to former Superintendent of Police Babul Akter, in the case over the murder of his wife, Mahmuda Khanam Mitu. Chamber Judge Justice Md Rezaul Haque passed a “no order” decision on the petition to stay the High Court’s bail order. This ruling removes any obstacle to Babul Akter’s release, said his lawyer Advocate Mohammad Shishir Monir. Mitu murder: Ex- SP Babul Akter gets bail, no bar to walk out from jail Earlier, on October 30, the High Court granted bail to Babul Akter. Following this, Mitu’s father, Mosharraf Hossain, filed a petition in the Appellate Division Chamber Court to stay the bail. Shishir represented Babul, while Additional Attorney General Barrister Aneek R Haque represented the state. Advocate Mahbubur Rahman appeared for Mitu’s father. “The chamber court has given a ‘no order’. With the bail being upheld, we hope Babul Akter will be released today. His bail bond has already been submitted,” said Shishir. Mitu was murdered on June 5, 2016 on her way to drop off her son at school in the GEC area of Chattogram city. The following day, Babul Akter filed a murder case as the complainant at the Panchlaish Police Station. Mitu murder: Babul Akter’s bail hearing on August 18 Later, the Police Bureau of Investigation (PBI) found evidence linking Babul to the crime. This led Mitu’s father to file another case, naming Babul as an accused. On May 12, 2021, PBI arrested Babul. On September 13, 2022, PBI submitted a charge sheet to the court, naming Babul and six others as accused. The court accepted the charge sheet on October 10. After failing to secure bail in the lower court, Babul applied to the High Court earlier this year. On November 27, the High Court granted him interim bail through a rule. Mosharraf Hossain, the plaintiff and Mitu’s father, later filed a petition to stay this order, which the Supreme Court reviewed on Wednesday and upheld the High Court’s bail decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday in a pivotal case challenging a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming care for minors. The outcome of this case could influence similar legislation in 25 other states and shape broader policies affecting transgender individuals, including sports participation and access to facilities. The court, now dominated by conservative justices, is addressing its second major transgender rights case, following its 2020 decision in favor of Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman fired by her employer. In that case, the justices ruled that federal laws against sex discrimination protect transgender individuals. The Core Debate: Equal Protection and Sex Discrimination At the heart of the Tennessee case is whether the state’s law violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similar groups equally. The law bans puberty blockers and hormone treatments specifically for transgender minors, while allowing these treatments for other medical purposes. Chase Strangio of the American Civil Liberties Union, the lead attorney representing the families challenging the law, argued that targeting transgender minors for these bans constitutes sex discrimination. The Biden administration also supports this view, with Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar emphasizing that such restrictions cannot be enforced without considering a person’s sex. “That is sex discrimination,” Prelogar wrote, urging the court to use its 2020 analysis, which recognized that “sex plays an unmistakable role” in discriminatory practices. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti defended the law, arguing it is not about discrimination but about protecting minors from irreversible medical interventions. He asserted that the law distinguishes between minors seeking treatment for gender transition and those seeking similar medications for other medical reasons. Scrutiny Levels: A Legal Battleground A key legal debate centers on the level of scrutiny the court should apply. The state wants the law evaluated under “rational basis review,” a lenient standard that often upholds legislation. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati sided with Tennessee, stating the law fell within lawmakers’ authority to regulate medical practices. Read: Bangladesh's transgender community ready to shatter boundaries with education However, the challengers argue for “heightened scrutiny,” which applies in sex discrimination cases. This standard requires the state to demonstrate that its law addresses a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. A decision to apply heightened scrutiny could lead to the case being sent back to the appeals court. Broader Implications for Transgender Rights The case arrives amid an intensifying national debate over transgender rights. Former President Donald Trump and his allies have campaigned to restrict transgender protections, while states have passed laws regulating gender-affirming care, participation in sports, and access to bathrooms. The medical community overwhelmingly supports gender-affirming care for youth, with organizations like the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics advocating for these treatments. However, Tennessee and its allies point to studies from European countries like Sweden and Finland that highlight potential risks and call for cautious use of such interventions. Personal Stakes for Families The Williams family of Nashville, one of the challengers, described how the ban has affected their transgender daughter, L.W. Her father, Brian Williams, shared that puberty blockers and hormone treatments have allowed her to thrive and plan for her future. Yet, due to the state’s law, she must travel out of state for care. “This ban forces us to fight harder for our child’s well-being,” Williams said. Read: DU admission test: Students demand cancellation of  transgender quota As the justices deliberate, their decision could significantly shape the legal landscape for transgender rights in the U.S., marking a crucial moment for families, healthcare providers, and advocates on both sides of the issue. Source: With inputs from agencies

The Supreme Court (SC) has sent a proposal to the Law Ministry over the formation of Judicial Appointments Council to appoint judges for the higher court of the country. The proposal was sent to the ministry after conducting a detailed study on the laws, rules and regulations, customs and other related matters over the appointment of higher court judges in different countries, said a media release sent by the SC. The SC proposed the formation of the council headed by the Chief Justice which will make recommendations after receiving a request from the President to recommend suitable persons for appointment as judge of the Supreme Court. In many countries especially in the western ones there are independent and impartial commissions or similar institutions for the appointment of judges of the HC. The council has proposed issuance a public notice inviting applications from the candidates for sending recommendations for the appointment of judges under Articles 95 and 98 of the Constitution on the basis of a request by the President. Read: Ctg lawyers demand CMP commissioner's resignation over Adv Alif’s murder Besides, the council can call any person concerned to the council meeting to seek opinions or suggestions about candidates or can instruct any government and private organisation to provide information demanded by the council. Once the council is formed, transparency and accountability will be ensured in the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, said the release.