HC judgment clearing enrolment of judge’s son as advocate stayed
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed a High Court judgment that rejected a writ petition filed by two lawyers on public interest challenging the legality of the enrolment of a judge’s son as advocate bypassing enrolment tests.
The High Court in the judgment had directed the petitioners, Sayedul Haque Suman and Ishrat Hasan, to pay Tk 100 each ‘as token cost’ to the public exchequer for wasting the court’s time with the case.
The three-member Appellate Division in its order also stayed the High Court ruling that asked the two lawyers to explain why they would not be punished for contempt of the court for a Facebook post criticising the HC judges as ‘biased’ towards their colleague’s son.
The Appellate Division came up with the stay order after hearing an application filed by the two lawyers seeking permission to appeal against the High Court judgment and the contempt rule, both given Sunday.
The apex court’s stay on the High Court decision came as some lawyers held a rare protest on Monday by setting up a box in front of the offices of the bar association’s president and secretary to raise fund for the payment of Tk 200 to the exchequer.
The High Court bench of Justice Gobinda Chandra Tagore and Justice Mohammad Ullah, which gave the judgment and the contempt ruling, expressed its concern and annoyance over the protest programme inviting Supreme Court Bar Association secretary Ruhul Quddus Kazal to join an online hearing on Monday.
On December 18, 2019, a High Court bench stayed the Bangladesh Bar Council’s decision of direct enrolment of Zumman Siddique on the ground that he had been practising as an advocate in the High Court of New Zealand.
The High Court had asked the law secretary and the Bangladesh Bar Council to explain why Article 21(1) (B) of the Bangladesh Bar Council Order 1972 under which Zumman Siddique was allowed to practise in the High Court Division without appearing in any enrolment test would not be declared as illegal.
The stay was given after hearing the writ petition filed by lawyers Sayedul Haque Suman and Ishrat Hasan challenging the Order and Zumman’s enrolment given in June 2019.
Zumman’s enrolment was criticised by the Supreme Court Bar saying that the Bar Council law requires enrolment to HC after two years’ practice at the country’s lower courts.
News Courtesy: www.newagebd.net
