No law is declared themselves bear, huh?

No law is declared themselves bear, huh? The High Court Division of the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the sixteenth amendment so that all MPs would resent that, but that's normal. On May 5, the National Assembly is made that heat, it should not be unusual for someone to think. Rather, it is to appreciate the silence of the Prime Minister. For example, he did not cause the immediate release of anger, as did many of his cabinet members, senior and experienced.

The law in this case you can be a little thank you. For example, the bill to raise judges' salaries growth during the opposition MPs and semi-public, semi-oyakaauta in the face of opposition, he clearly says, "We can not be reckless." He said the bill tabled in Parliament.

However, the bill did not pass in Parliament, judges salaries and allowances have been pending for at least three months. In his report to the committee, and the committee has 90 days. Therefore, it is assumed, three or four more months of uncertainty dolacale judges will be shaken. It may be logical to committee. But at the same session of the parliament to pass the bill on how to double their salaries deluxe, Parliamentary Affairs Minister think it was necessary to think. The people's tax money to establish a separate parliament session broadcast live on national TV and radio have heard that, but the idea that it is natural. A former minister and a senior member of the judges, said: "If we do not pass legislation to raise judges' salaries, then they can pass this law? ... If they were to increase their salaries." The National Party says the same thing more leader. Another senior Awami League leader and senior minister said: "We know these judges. We are in power because they were the judges. "

The minister also deserve thanks for that reason, he said, "We believe in the rule of law. Still believe that the judiciary is independent. Therefore, next Sunday-Monday will appeal against the verdict. Legal way to go. "The Appellate Division of the way, the legal arguments that will fight, we benefit from it. His predecessor, former Law Minister Shafique Ahmed told the court that the matter would be settled now. Without this belief to the country's highest court of the judiciary and the need for the existence would be questionable. However, the minister said, "We will not tolerate conspiracy against democracy." His last mantabyatuku some hesitation, however, gives birth. Judgments, especially an extended bench contained pointed references to the smell of conspiracy, politics is not acceptable.

The policy followed by the government's attitude towards the court, and at times it seems that a lot of their position, but the arbitrator talagachata my money. " For that reason, the judgments in favor of the government of taking advantage of their political enthusiasm not seen any shortfall. They explained that the cancellation of the caretaker government system has always been, at least two terms, although the court was in favor of maintaining the system. In contrast to the judgment against the government's reluctance to comply with them and there is no dearth of excuses. Otherwise, the two ministers accused of violating the constitution and the court sentenced for contempt of court after they broke their charge was not upheld. These instances clearly indicate that the executive branch of the judiciary with judges' salaries or the opportunities for conflict only limited question, is not it.

MPs so much outrage about the verdict, the verdict has been what? He said the court verdict, the Supreme Court of Justice of the sixteenth amendment to the Constitution to remove the power back into the hands of the Parliament is illegal and unconstitutional. The High Court said that the removal of judges through the parliamentary process durghatanamatra history. In some countries of the world, but why it is not appropriate for the country, he told the court explained, Article 70 of the Constitution, lawmakers have their hands and feet bound. Parliament does not have the freedom to ask questions about the party's position. Even if the party's decision is wrong, even if not. They can not vote against the party's decision. In fact, their political parties, members of parliament hostage to policymakers. Before the court's criticism of our members is able to pluck fastening section 70, the test will be what? They do not accept the word of the 7 constitution to remove Parliament from the Awami League took the judges? The Fourth Amendment to the powers of the president was wrong to give up on its own?

44 years ago, our predecessors suitable arrangement for the country felt that it would be appropriate that today, the idea that it is progressive, we must abide by it. Then the law would not have any land reform in the country. The United Nations has adopted the fundamental principles of judicial independence just 31 years ago, in 1985. 9 November 1985 and the same year, the United Nations General Assembly on 13 December 4032 and 40/146 respectively, by taking the basic principles of the proposal is approved. Then a more detailed explanation of these various international forums and guidance have been adopted, in light of the various countries which have reformed their laws. Commonwealth Principles lyatimara House, so an instruction, in order to ensure the independence of the judiciary should be standard practice, it is recommended. High Court says something different from what?

Again, the question of judges' salaries and allowances can be considered procrastination is an isolated incident? It does not say that the latest plot. In this case can be an example or two. The official judges of the subordinate courts are required to take part in meetings and seminars and training outside the workplace unless prior permission from the Ministry of Justice was given the bill. It was issued without prior notification that they will not be able to do so. Forced the Chief Justice issued a week ago, saying that it can not give instructions to the Ministry of Law (Supreme Court directive to comply with the executive and the judiciary, Ittefaq, April 30, 016). Ministry of Public Administration clearance to recruit employees of a lower court or a review of the government's obligations Revocation Appellate Division dismissed the petition on Wednesday, May 4. Earlier reports that the lower court judges, the Judicial Service Pay Commission's recommendations concerning the increase of salaries was not much heed.

The court also said the creation of the concept of judicial independence adverse effects on the public. They said that the concept of human being, if the judiciary is not independent, but they will not be able to survive. The idea is not just the importance of the judiciary, the state will face a crisis. Therefore, in order to create an atmosphere of hostility between the court and the parliament is not feeling all that attention should be given towards it. If you want the rule of law, independence of the judiciary should be. MPs not only the law, the role of the judge does not want to see anyone. Democracy, rule of law condition, not the rule of MPs.