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.

The Office of the Chief Justice of Bangladesh has expressed deep concern over the unprecedented incidents that unfolded on the Supreme Court premises on Wednesday, as well as other recent events within judicial premises nationwide. In a statement on Thursday, the Chief Justice’s Office reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining the smooth operation of the justice delivery system across the country. All developments are being closely monitored to ensure that the judicial processes remain undisturbed despite the challenges, it added. BNP leader Zainul Abedin Farroque acquitted in wealth statement case To prevent a recurrence of such incidents, the Office of the Chief Justice has implemented comprehensive measures within the Supreme Court, as well as in district judgeships and magistracies. The chief justice has also issued clear directives for all courts and tribunals to continue their functions normally, emphasising the judiciary’s crucial role in serving the nation’s greater interest.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has granted a petition to restore the appeal made against the verdict that declared the registration of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami illegal. The Appellate Division, led by Chief Justice Dr Syed Refaat Ahmed and consisting of four judges, issued this order on Tuesday. Barrister Ehsan Abdullah Siddique and Advocate Mohammad Shishir Monir represented Jamaat in the court. As a result of today's order, the appeal against the verdict that declared Jamaat-e-Islami's registration illegal will again be heard in the highest court. After the order, lawyer Shishir Monir told journalists, “The Appellate Division had earlier dismissed the appeal during the hearing regarding the cancellation of Jamaat's registration because no lawyer was present on behalf of the party. “However, as constitutional questions were involved in the case, the High Court had referred it directly to the Appellate Division. The petition was made to restore the appeal as its dismissal without a hearing was deemed inappropriate. Along with this, there was also a petition for delayed forgiveness. The Appellate Division granted our petition. Now, the appeal regarding the cancellation of Jamaat's registration will be heard again.” After resolving a writ petition, the High Court issued a verdict on August 1, 2013, cancelling and declaring the registration of Jamaat-e-Islami illegal. Subsequently, on December 7, 2018, the Election Commission (EC) issued a notification cancelling the registration of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. Later, Jamaat appealed against the High Court's verdict. However, since Jamaat's main lawyer was absent during the appeal hearing against the High Court's verdict, the Appellate Division, led by the then-Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan, issued a dismissal order on November 19 last year. Consequently, the High Court's verdict declaring the registration of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami illegal remained upheld. Nevertheless, the appeal that had been dismissed was restored for hearing after the fall of the Awami League government. On September 2, the chamber court set the petition for hearing in the full bench of the Appellate Division on October 21. However, on October 22, the matter came up in the hearing schedule of the Division. Will serve, not rule people if given opportunity: Jamaat Ameer Meanwhile, during the ongoing anti-discrimination movement, on August 1, the then Awami League government declared a ban on Jamaat-e-Islami and Islami Chhatra Shibir. The Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notification banning Jamaat, Chhatra Shibir, and their other affiliated organisations under section 18(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act. However, on August 28, the decision to ban Jamaat and Shibir was revoked through a notification.

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that judges can be removed through the Supreme Judicial Council. In a landmark ruling today, the six-member Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, upheld its earlier decision that declared the 16th Amendment to the Constitution invalid. This ruling solidifies the authority of the Supreme Judicial Council in investigating allegations of incapacity or professional misconduct against judges. Attorney General Md. Asaduzzaman represented the state in the court during the hearing. Advocate Manzil Murshed stood for the petitioner in the court. Read: 12 High Court judges being sent on leave  The 16th Amendment, passed by the Awami League government in 2014, sought to transfer the power of removing judges from the Supreme Judicial Council to the National Parliament. However, the amendment's legality was challenged in the High Court. In a ruling on May 5, 2016, a special bench declared the amendment unconstitutional by majority decision. The government appealed against this ruling in January 2017, but on July 3 of the same year, the full Appellate Division bench, led by then-Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, unanimously rejected the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to annul the 16th Amendment. The government filed a petition on December 24, 2017, seeking a review of the Appellate Division's verdict on the 16th Amendment. As a result of Sunday’s ruling, the judiciary retains its independence, ensuring that the investigation and removal of judges will remain a judicial matter rather than a political one.

Six High Court judges, accused of collaborating with the ousted Hasina government, have been sent on leave. Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed personally informed the judges of this decision during a meeting today. In a series of meetings, the judges entered the Chief Justice's office, and it was confirmed that six of them attended an invitation extended by Justice Ahmed. Those present included Justices S.M. Moniruzzaman, Khondkar Diliruzzaman, Md. Akteruzzaman, Shahed Md. Nuruddin, S.M. Masud Hossain Dolon, and Md. Aminul Islam. The Chief Justice informed these judges that they would be placed on leave. Student movement to lay siege to High Court on Wed While six other judges did not attend the meeting, sources confirmed they will also be placed on leave, regardless of their presence. Several Supreme Court judges verified this development on Wednesday afternoon. When asked for comment, Supreme Court Registrar General Aziz Ahmed Bhuiyan said, “I have no information.” The invitation to the 12 High Court judges came after allegations surfaced that they acted as accomplices to the former Awami League-led government. The meeting, organized at the Chief Justice’s request, altered the day’s previous agenda. Sources indicate that the judges face numerous allegations of corruption and misconduct linked to their ties with the former administration. Various organizations have long demanded the removal of judges perceived to have political bias, particularly those appointed during the Awami League's tenure. General lawyers have echoed these demands, calling for the resignation of the judges. Tensions escalated earlier today when thousands of students from the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement gathered outside the High Court, demanding the resignation of what they called “fascist” judges linked to the Awami League. By 12:30 pm, the protest had drawn large crowds, with demonstrators chanting and creating a charged atmosphere. The protest march started at Dhaka University’s Raju sculpture and culminated at the High Court. The student protesters issued a 2 pm ultimatum, demanding the resignation of the "politically affiliated and corrupt" judges. In a related development, BNP-supporting lawyers held a separate rally at the Supreme Court, also calling for the resignation of the accused judges.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has denied bail to the suspended Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Prisons Bazlur Rashid in connection with a corruption case. A five-member bench of the Appellate Division headed by Justice Burhanuddin passed the order on Monday. Suspended DIG Bazlur Rashid granted HC bail Advocate Khurshid Alam stood for the Anti-Corruption Committee (ACC) while advocate SM Rezaul Karim moved for the petitioner. Earlier, Dhaka Special Judge Court-5 on 23 October 2022, had sentenced him to five years imprisonment and fined Tk5,00,000 in the case filed for amassing assets worth Tk3.14 crore. Suspended DIG Bazlur Rashid gets five-year jail in graft case   Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Deputy Director Md Salauddin filed the case against him on Oct 20, 2019. Later, he was arrested the same day. Why ex-DIG prison Bazlur Rashid’s bail won’t be scrapped: HC   On August 26, 2020,  ACC Deputy Director Nasir Uddin filed the charge sheet against Bazlur Rashid.