Summary

of ‘A Broken Dream: Status of Rule of Law, Human Rights and

Democracy’
Index:
1. International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka (ICT)
2. Role to ensure executive control over Judiciary
3. Irregular elevation of Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury to Appellate Division
4. Eviction of Barrister Moudud Ahmed
5. Grabbing property of minority communities
6. Request by DGFI in pending litigation
7. Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury expresses intention to hear ICT Appeal
8. Contempt proceedings against Janakantha Editor
9. Contempt proceedings against two Cabinet Ministers
10. Corruption in the appointment of public prosecutors
11. Assessment of elections of 5th January 2014
12. Executive control over the subordinate judiciary
13. Corruption in the government
14. Masdar Hossain Case - Draft Rules framed by the Supreme Court – Non-cooperation of the Law
Ministry in publishing Gazette Notification – Unethical conduct of the Law Minister – Violation of
Constitution by five member Bench of the Supreme Court in accepting the Rules which were framed
in violation of the Supreme Court’s directives
15. Criticism of manner of constituting Election Commission
16. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution and the challenge to its legality
17. Interference of DGFI in the hearing of the 16th Amendment Case in the High Court
18. CJ approached by PM regarding the 16th Amendment Case
19. Objections by Attorney General to appointment of amicus curiae in 16th Amendment case
20. Interference of the Executive post completion of hearing of the 16th Amendment Case
21. Role of the Attorney General in influencing the judgment of the 16th Amendment Case
22. CJ Sinha wants to resign, but not allowed
23. CJ Sinha persuades two reluctant Judges to change their views – Judges decide to prepare
separate opinions – CJ’s draft judgment leaked to govt. by a member of the Bench
24. Criticism of the 16th Amendment Judgment by ABM Khairul Haque and Anisul Haque
25. Criticism of observations made by Syed Mahmud Hossain and Hasan Foez Siddiqui
26. PM’s criticism of 16th Amendment Judgment based on remarks by sycophants
27. Criticism of Prime Minister

1
28.CJ Sinha decides to resign again
29. Harassment by intelligence agencies – CJ Sinha persuaded not to return to country – Law
Secretary had an interest in preventing him from returning – Unprecedented defiance of Chamber
Judge- Reflections on the role of DGFI
30. Appellate Division Judges refuse to sit with CJ Sinha on President’s direction
31. Criticism of the Judges of the Appellate Division
32. Criticism of the President- Excessive power in the hands of DGFI
33. Circumstances compelling CJ Sinha to take leave – repeated visits by DGFI – Dubious role of Law
Minister
34. Criticism of Justice Abdul Wahhab Miah
35. Corruption allegations against CJ
36. Further criticism of Justice Abdul Wahhab Miah
37. CJ not allowed to resign with the purpose of humiliating him – Govt. expected Sinha to be
grateful after being appointed as CJ
38. Travels to Australia, Canada and the US – Abduction of Aniruddha Roy – Resignation of CJ on
condition of Aniruddha’s release
39. Reflections on the authoritarianism of the Chief Executive
40. Criticism of the role of India in Bangladesh affairs
41. Criticism of incorrect advice tendered by Law Minister and Attorney General

1. International Crimes Tribunal, Dhaka (ICT)

1.1. Role in formation of ICT

Pg 46: CJ Sinha admits being involved in the process of formation of the International Crimes
Tribunal. He writes, ‘Shafique Ahmed, Justice Abdur Rashid and I were working on the matter,
because Shafique Ahmed wanted our help in the selection process of judges and prosecutors I
suggested Rana Das Gupta, a prominent lawyer of Chittagong. …

1.2. Selection of Judges for ICT: on the basis of their close association with ruling party:

Pg 46,47: Mohammad Nizamul Haque was selected as Chairman of the Tribunal as he was involved
in the process of ‘Gono-Adalat’ (People’s Court) in a symbolic trial of perpetrators of war crimes.’

Pg 35: “both Obaidul Hasan and Enayetur Rahim belonged to strong Awami League leaning families.
Obaidul Hasan’s younger brother Sajjad, an additional secretary, was working as private secretary to
the Prime Minister and he is very close to the Prime Minister. Enayetur Rahim’s younger brother is a
whip of the Parliament where the Awami League is in the majority.”

50,51: “I talked with Obaidul Hasan and M Enayetur Rahim. Obaidul Hasan responded that if he was
given any responsibility, he was ready to take charge. But Enayetur Rahim was reluctant claiming his
father was an MP and his brother is also an MP. If he is appointed as the chairman of a tribunal,
objections might arise. Ultimately Fazle Kabir was appointed Chairman of Tribunal-1 and Obaidul
Hasan was made Chairman of Tribunal-2. After the retirement of Fazle Kabir, Enayetur Rahim
became the Chairman of Tribuanl-1.”

1.3. Views regarding ICT Chairman, Nizamul Haque

Pg 47: Regarding Nizamul Haque, CJ Sinha notes that he was inefficient and used to ‘pursue him on
and off for his elevation to the Appellate Division and simultaneously lobbying for giving him a
position like the Chief Justice or at least close to that position.’

1.4. Motivation behind breaking the judicial norms:

Pg 48-49 “According to him [Shafique Ahmed], if I lobbied with the Prime Minister, I would be able
to convince her. I was reluctant to interfere in the matter because I was thinking that as a sitting
judge it was not fair for me to talk with the Prime Minister over an executive matter ….. Then I
decided that it was the demand of most people who knew that the people had suffered during the
war of liberation. We sacrificed three million lives and more than 100,000 people had lost their
limbs, some of them were maimed forever and 200,000 females had lost their chastity. As a citizen
of this country, besides being a judge, I have an obligation to the nation. I also realized that if the
country had not been liberated at the call of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, I would have
ended up as a teacher of a school or at best as a lawyer of the sub-divisional court. Independence
not only gave a flag to the nation, it gave new life to the thinking of persons who had survived and
could lead the country better than who had been ruling our country in the past. I became the judge
of the highest court because of the country’s independence and I could not deserve more power or
prestige from the country other than by showing respect to the souls of the martyrs. If it is my belief,

3
it was an obligation on my part to try to persuade the Prime Minister once again and if any favorable
result could be achieved from my endeavor, it would be a great honor and respect for the sacrifice
made by our courageous freedom loving people.”

1.5. On ICT rule of evidence and procedure:

pg 49-50: But the war crimes trial was completely different,,,,The prosecution or for that purpose
1
the government need not take so much pain in collecting evidence to prove a charge in the manner
she had collected evidence in her father’s assassination trial. I further explained to her in brief the
process of trial of the cases, mode of recording evidence and the admissibility of evidence which are
totally distinct from the earlier trial. Under the new system, affidavit evidence is admissible,
newspaper reports are available, video reports and photographs are also admissible, no matter from
where it was collected. Most of the evidence can be collected from the national archives and some
of them can be collected from freedom fighters’ possession. The process can be expedited if the
government provided enough money and right persons were selected for the purpose. I told her that
the selection of the First tribunal was not proper and there were errors.

1.6. Adamant to adjudicate ICT appeal:

Pg 50: CJ Sinha refers to the recusal petition filed by the accused in the wake of revelation of Skype
conversations according to which Sinha had asked Nizamul Haque to dispose of a few cases. CJ Sinha
says, ‘I declared that I was not feeling embarrassed because I did not speak to Nizamul Haque
regarding the trial of the cases or touched on the merit of the cases or even anything about the trial
process. … I told him that he had to conclude trial of one or two cases before his name could be
2
considered for elevation.’

1
Indeed in handing down the death sentences, he relied on inconsistent evidences, eg. Abdul Qader Molla was
awarded death penalty by the evidence of a sole witness, who accused Mr Molla for the first time in the
tribunal. She has public statements which are materially different from her account on the dock. See David
Bergman’s op-ed:
https://bangladeshwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2013/10/sole-witness-in-molla-death-penalty.html
2
Contrast that with his refusal to let Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury to seat on an appeal bench because
“Ethically no judge can show any interest to hear a case and it is the duty of the Chief Justice not to keep him
in a matter if he found that the judge was interested in a particular matter..” (pg275). Also his discussion on
the independence of judiciary at chapter 26, that the role of a judge like that of an “objective umpire”… not a
politician not to apply his own belief and values (pg 384-410)

4
2. Role to ensure executive control over Judiciary:
2.1. Appointment of Fazlul Karim as chief justice:

pg 33-34: “Even at some point, Mohammad Fazlul Karim came to my residence twice to seek my
help for his selection…..At the eleventh hour, the Law Minister and I had a telephonic
discussion….Just immediately before making the decision, Shafique Ahmed rang me at around 11.00
PM to receive assurances from Mohammad Fazlul Karim that if he was chosen as the Chief Justice he
would not embarrass the government. I rushed to Fazlul Karim’s house….I communicated the
message of the Law Minister to Fazlul Karim. … He caught my right hand and told me, “I always
looked at you like my younger brother. I will do whatever you want me to do.” ….Standing there I
communicated the words used by Fazlul Karim to the Law Minister and gave the phone to Fazlul
Karim to speak with the Law Minister….. there was a report in the newspapers that both Md. Ruhul
Quddus and Khasruzzaman had criminal records while studying in the university. In fact, those were
political cases. Nevertheless, the Chief Justice did not invite these judges for taking oath. It was an
embarrassing situation for me, the Law Minister, the government and others, who had
recommended him as the Chief Justice. The government was annoyed about this event. A few days
later….I invited the Chief Justice to my room for a few minutes for an emergency discussion. I
requested the Chief Justice to change his decision and save us from embarrassment by taking on
those two judges. I reminded him the night when he gave me his words3 and more so because those
two names were recommended by him. The Chief Justice stoutly denied deviating from his decision.
Thereafter, his relationship with the government was not strained.”

2.2. Helping Hasina to consolidate power:

pg 513: “She [the prime Minister] alone could not remain in power for such a long period of time
without the assistance of many of us, but the moment she consolidated her power without taking a
mandate of the people, she became rude.”

2.3. Recommended partisan judges for Awami League who subsequently elevated to appellate
division and served the government purpose:

pg24: “I suggested including Advocate Abdur Rashid. He was a progressive [Awami League] lawyer
and a competent one. He accepted the proposal. Then I advised him to appoint at least two Deputy
Attorneys General who could be selected for judgeship in due course. One was Syed Mahmud
4 5
Hossain , the present Chief Justice, and another was Hasan Fayez Siddiqui . I told him that these two
young lawyers are promising and would make good judges. Then he requested me to ask them to
meet him.”

pg 435, 436: “I firmly believed that at the Bang Bhaban there was at least one discussion with some
judges prior to my discussion and that was the reason I was kept in the office of the Military
Secretary. The other room located in the northern block was used as the venue for the discussion.
Accordingly, I was taken to the southern block to the Military Secretary’s office which was toward

3
Contrast that with the situation when Sinha was reminded by the law minister about his appointment as chief
justice and requested him not to embarrass the government (see point 37)
4
Involved in 4 appeals of ICT where he awarded death sentences.
5
Involved in 4 appeals of ICT where he awarded death sentences.

5
the western side opposite to the President’s outer office. I felt confirmed that the restless
movement of the Military Secretary was due to such a meeting.”

pg 437: “In the meantime, Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah started pleading with Syed Mahmud Hossain
and Hasan Foez Siddique. Nazmun Ara Sultana joined him. I realized that the more they would try to
convince them, the more those judges would remain firm in their opinions because I realized what
had happened the previous evening. They could not ignore the Prime Minister’s request because the
carrot was dangling near their mouth.”

pg 441: “Except Mirza Hossain Haider, all other judges fell in the trap of the government. Even after
Syed Mahmud Hossain and Hasan Foez Siddique’s opinions, I did not rectify my opinion to meet
those points, which I will discuss later.”

pg 469: “Syed Mahmud Hossain and Hasan Foez Siddiqui observed that I made observations
regarding Article 116 of the Constitution which was not an issue at all in the appeal. Both said, I
travelled beyond the issues involved in the matter. …. I strongly believe and still hold the view that
their opinions were made to be given from a certain corner in the same manner as they did in the
case of two Ministers in a contempt proceeding. … Arbitrary or biased decisions or other terrible
blunders and grave misjudgments by judges, unless there are correcting agencies, may result in
crimes without punishment.”

2.4. despite having many loopholes in the trial, judges handed over death penalty to the accused
persons in Sheikh Mujib (father of the PM) Marder case:

pg49: “I told her that I was a judge of her father’s case and knew everything upon conclusion of the
hearing of the case. I found many loopholes in the trial, but these were because of the lapse of time
and changes in the political scenario in the country. Sinha, Justice Surendra Kumar. A Broken Dream:
Rule of Law, Human Rights and Democracy”.

3. Irregular elevation of Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury to Appellate

Division
Pg 53: CJ Sinha refers to the elevation of Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury to the Appellate Division.
This appointment was made by the President without the approval of the then Chief Justice
Mozammel Hossain. When the elevation of Justice Chowdhury was announced, CJ Mozammel
Hossain initially said that his name should be dropped but later he gave his consent to the
appointment.

4. Eviction of Barrister Moudud Ahmed

Pg 173: Regarding the eviction of Moudud Ahmed from his house, which was subsequently
demolished, CJ Sinha notes, ‘the way Barrister Moudud Ahmed was evicted from the house was
inhuman and against all canons of law. He was not even afforded an opportunity to remove his
valuable articles. He has been residing in the house for a long time. It seemed that though the
judgment of the apex court was not a politically motivated one, the conduct of the government
proved that it was politically motivated. A more deplorable part of the government’s action was that
just within seven days of the eviction, the land was handed over to the police department for
residential purposes …’

6
5. Grabbing property of minority communities:
Pg 185: Referring to the grabbing of property of Hindus, CJ Sinha referring to a survey noted, ‘The
survey showed the beneficiaries of land (grabbing) … cut across all party lines. The political
affiliations of the beneficiaries of appropriated property were: Bangladesh Awami League (44.2%),
Bangladesh Nationalist Party (31.7%), Jatiya Party (5.8%), Jamaat-e-Islami (4.8%) and Others (13.5%).

6. Request by DGFI in pending litigation

Pg 217: While dealing with a case relating to collection of revenues, ‘a high ranking officer of an elite
agency (DGFI) in the rank of Colonel’ met CJ Sinha and told him that ‘their agency was interested in
the matter’. CJ Sinha told him that he should not come to court premises in future.

7. Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury expresses intention to hear ICT Appeal

Pg 275: Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury expressed an intention to CJ Sinha to be a member of the
bench which was hearing the appeal of Salauddin Quader Chowdhury from the judgment of the ICT.
However, CJ Sinha refused.

8. Contempt proceedings against Janakantha Editor

Pg 277- 280: CJ Sinha narrates the incidents which culminated in the drawing up of contempt
proceedings against the Janakantha Editor and reporter. He also states that the Law Minister had
visited Nazmun Ara Sultana at her residence to persuade her to relieve the contemners of the charge
of contempt.

Pg 281: Justice Wahhab Miah pleaded with CJ Sinha to delay the delivery of the judgment as the
contemnor, Atiqullah Khan Masud was a powerful man with close connections with the PM, and that
‘if we convict him, there would be repercussions on the part of the government.’

Pg 281-282: Justice Wahhab Miah pleaded with CJ Sinha to drop the adverse comments made in the
judgment against Mr. Salauddin Dolon in the contempt matter.

9. Contempt proceedings against two Cabinet Ministers

Pg 285- 288: CJ Sinha refers to the incident where two sitting Cabinet Ministers were committed for
contempt of court, and notes, ‘though all the judges unanimously found the ministers guilty of
contempt of court, and their senior counsel admitted in open court that they had violated their oath,
Syed Mahmud Hossain and Hasan Foez Siddique observed that the ministers did not violate their
oath.

Pg 292: CJ Sinha goes on to argue, ‘The contemners deserved no sympathy other than the lenient
view taken in awarding the sentence … It is a criminal contempt and the ministers were convicted for
criminal offence, but the Prime Minister kept them in the Cabinet. That is totally unethical.’

10. Corruption in the appointment of public prosecutors

Pg 314: Regarding the appointment of Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders, CJ Sinha notes,
‘Now the Public Prosecutors and Government Pleaders are appointed mainly on political
considerations and there is strong lobbying for the jobs … It is rumoured that the Public Prosecutors
and Government Pleaders are appointed in exchange for large kick-backs without considering
whether the candidates can hold such offices. … The main consideration apparently is party
affiliation and money. …’

7
11. Assessment of elections of 5th January 2014
Pg 378: Regarding holding of free and fair elections, CJ Sinha questions, ‘Do we really want free and
fair elections? The answer is possibly ‘No’. And that is only because of a lack of political will of the
political party in power. It always wants to continue in power by any means. When such a party
remains in the opposition for any reason, it will raise the issue of neutral elections. This proves that
our politicians do not allow the Election Commission to work independently. …’

Pg 379-380: Regarding the elections of 5th January 2014, CJ Sinha writes, ‘In 2014, one of the main
political parties did not participate in the national parliamentary election on the plea that the
Election Commission was not impartial … Their apprehension proved true. Firstly, voter turnout in
that election was so meagre that in some cases only 5% of voters turned up …. 153 MPs were
declared elected unopposed, which is unprecedented in the history of democracy. … Hussain
Mohammad Ershad withdrew his nomination but it was not accepted only to show that Jatiya Party
participated in the election … (It) appeared that within two years there would be another election.
But predictably, after consolidating power, (the AL) forgot the part and continued in power with the
help of a superpower of the subcontinent.’

12. Executive control over the subordinate judiciary

Pg 396: ‘Never during my tenure … was I able to persuade the Executive to leave the accountability
of judges of the lower judiciary in the hands of the High Court Division. … all disciplinary actions (of
subordinate judges) are being initiated and inquiries held by the Executive. If any proposal is sent for
taking disciplinary actions against a subordinate judicial officer, the Ministry of Law keeps the matter
in abeyance … In such a scenario, the Supreme Court is subjected to severe embarrassment …’

13. Corruption in the government

Pg 401: … ‘There is so much talk of rampant corruption in every department of the state … the
increasing work load of the Anti Corruption Bureau is testimony to the fact that corruption is a
contagious disease and eating up the very vitals of our administrative bodies. The reason seems to
be individual self-aggrandizement, insensitivity and lack of human values in the administration.’

14. Masdar Hossain Case - Draft Rules framed by the Supreme Court – Non-
cooperation of the Law Ministry in publishing Gazette Notification –
Unethical conduct of the Law Minister – Violation of Constitution by five
member Bench of the Supreme Court in accepting the Rules which were
framed in violation of the Supreme Court’s directives
Pg 404: ‘Except Bangladesh I cannot recollect of any country that has a constitution and a
democracy, and yet the judiciary is under the direct control and discipline of the Executive. After the
delivery of the judgment in the Masdar Hossain case, fourteen years had elapsed, but the Executive
did not promulgate the disciplinary and conduct rules for the officers of the subordinate judiciary’.

Pg 404: ‘… A nine member bench (of the Supreme Court) by order dated August 20, 2016 quoting the
guidelines … Masdar Hossain Case observed that the government had accepted the guidelines … but
that the lower judiciary could not function independently under the control and supervision of the
Supreme Court in the absence of Disciplinary and Conduct Rules’.

8
Pg 405: ‘… The Ministry did not publish the gazette notification (relating to discipline and conduct of
subordinate judges) and instead sat on the matter. I requested the Law Minister to have a cup of
tea. … The Law Minister pointed out that the court had undermined the President … I was greatly
surprised and noticed the audacity of the Law Minister …’

Pg 406: ‘… The Law Minister also assured me that he would publish the Gazette Notification within a
week …’

Pg 406: ‘All my endeavours failed due to the rigid attitude of the Law Minister. Whenever he met me
he appeared to be very cordial and pretended that the rules were in the final stage for examination
before final publication in the gazette. I had never come across any Law Minister who blatantly
makes such false statements to a Chief Justice. All the time he failed to honour his words …’

Pg 406: ‘… On every occasion of his (the Law Minister’s) visit he used to make requests for some
cases and I got information from reliable sources that he was in the habit of requesting the judges of
the High Court Division … During my tenure as judge, I found three Law Ministers, and I never found
Abdul Matin Khasru and Shafique Ahmed requesting on behalf of any case at any point of time. The
previous two Ministers regularly attended the Ministry … but Anisul Haque hardly attends his office
…’

Pg 406-407: ‘When I was compelled to leave the country, I learnt from the media that there were
fruitful discussions between the Law Minister and the judges of the Appellate Division headed by
Justice Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah … and that the gazette notification would be published soon. …
Somehow I collected a copy of the rules and on reading them I was totally bewildered. The rules are
verbatim repetition of the rules which were initially prepared by the Ministry and those are in total
conflict with Masder Hossain and the order (of the Supreme Court) dated August 28, 2016.’

Pg 410: CJ Sinha refers to the findings of the Appellate Division in the Masdar Hossain Case and
notes, ‘Any deviation from (those findings) is tantamount to violation of the Constitution. If the
judges cannot comprehend the tenor and meaning of the opinions, they cannot hold the office of
the highest court’.

Pg 410: ‘… the Ministry, particularly the Law Minister, the Law Secretary and the judges of the
(Supreme) Court flouted the findings, directions and guidelines in Masder Hossain Case and …
thereby their acts are in violation of the Constitution. The five member Bench which approved the
rules have not only betrayed the judiciary for fear of reprisal by the Executive but also trampled
upon the judiciary. … The five member bench cannot ignore, nullify and/or review any order or
judgment passed by a nine-member Bench. Therefore, the order accepting the Disciplinary Rules by
the Bench is per incuriam and has no force of law. It is a misfortune that these judges compromised
with their conscience which is disgraceful, shameful, and violated the judicial norms.’

15. Criticism of manner of constituting Election Commission

Pg 413: ‘It is a practice prevalent in our country that the Election Commissioners are appointed from
amongst retired persons. So they feel … they must perform their responsibilities as per the desire of
the government…If such a process continues, there cannot be any credible and fair election …
because (the Election Commissioners) are chosen on consideration of their line of thinking, political

9
ideology and connections with political party. No government ever tried to institutionalise the
Election Commission.’

16. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution and the challenge to its legality
Pg 424: Regarding the introduction of the 16th Amendment making Supreme Court Judges removable
by the Parliament, CJ Sinha notes, ‘… ABM Khairul Haque and Suranji Sengupta are the main
architects in reintroducing the provisions in the 1972 Constitution (in respect of removal of judges by
Parliament). … I cautioned ABM Khairul Haque … not to give ill advice to the government …’

Pg 424-425: Regarding the hearing of the ‘16th Amendment Case’ by the High Court Division, CJ Sinha
notes, ‘… A Special Bench with Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury, Quazi Reza-ul Hoque and Md. Ashraful
Kamal heard the matter. …. After conclusion of the hearing, the judges met for discussion and
unanimously decided that the rule would be made absolute by declaring the amendment to the
Constitution void. … the judges decided to pass a short order on May 5, 2016 and all the three
judges prepared a short order on May 4, 2016.’

17. Interference of DGFI in the hearing of the 16th Amendment Case in the
High Court
Pg 425: Regarding the interference of DGFI in the deliberation of Judges of the High Court Division in
the 16th Amendment Case, CJ Sinha notes, ‘Justice Quazi Reza-ul Hoque came to meet me on
emergency basis in the late afternoon of May 4, 2016…. He told me that a (DGFI) officer had met him
in his chamber and pressurised him to deliver judgment in favour of the government. … I was so
shocked after hearing him that I called the Attorney General and the Law Minister … One day I had
the occasion to meet the Prime Minister at a function, and I requested her to direct the DGFI
Officers not to interfere in the administration of justice. The Prime Minister remained silent.’

Pg 426: ‘After pronouncement of judgment … Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury and Quazi Reza-ul Hoque
came to meet me. … Then they narrated a pathetic story they had experienced prior to rising of the
court. When the judges were about to rise … for pronouncement of judgment, Md. Ashraful Kamal
told Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury that the short order would be modified and he would give a
dissenting opinion. … They (Moyeenul Islam Chowdhury and Quazi Reza-ul Hoque) told me that till
late evening, Md. Ashraful Kamal was with them, and it was beyond their imagination that he would
change his mind in such a manner at night. Everything then became clear to me: the DGFI Officials
had changed the mind of Md. Ashraful Kamal.’

18. CJ approached by PM regarding the 16th Amendment Case

Pg 427-428: ‘At a State banquet … the Prime Minister came in front of me and reminded me about
the 16th Amendment Case which had been taken up for hearing in the High Court Division. This was
the first occasion that the Prime Minister approached me about a case. I told her that normally I did
not interfere in any matter pending before the High Court Division or the lower judiciary.’

19. Objections by Attorney General to appointment of amicus curiae in 16th

Amendment case
Pg 429: Following the appointment of amicus curiae in the 16th Amendment Case, ‘the Attorney
General raised the objection that the court had selected amici curiae in an unbalanced manner
inasmuch as most of the lawyers were against the government’s line of thinking. I cautioned the

10
Attorney General not to bring politics into the court … (If) he had any suggestion to add more
lawyers, I would not have any objection. The Attorney General could not supply any name. Later
Abdul Matin Khasru prayed for inclusion of his name as intervener. I allowed him to appear and
place his argument’

20. Interference of the Executive post completion of hearing of the 16th

Amendment Case
Pg 429-430: ‘The last day of hearing was June 1, 2017. I adjourned the matter for delivery of
judgment on July 3, 2017. After rising from the court, I requested the judges to come to my
chamber for a discussion with them … pointing out that … our memory is fresh. (Justice) Abdul
Wahhab Miah protested my view saying that we would not express anything prior to July 3. .. The
Judges could not agree (regarding expressing their views) and it was a big blunder committed by
them.’

Pg 429-430: ‘On July 1, 2017, I got a call on my private mobile phone and the caller identified himself
as the military secretary to the President and requested me to come to Bangabhaban for a talk with
the President at 730PM, as desired’.

Pg 430: After praising the President’s simple life style, CJ Sinha writes, ‘However, he is a spineless
power monger politician. He does not believe in ethics and morality. He has a quality which is lacking
in many politicians and it is his loyalty to his master.’

Pg 431-432: ‘At any event, I reached Bangabhaban five minutes ahead of the scheduled time. The
Military Secretary received me … and took me to his room. (After waiting for 45 minutes) I was taken
to the President’s room. I was stunned on seeing the persons present there. Besides the President,
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, Law Minister Anisul Haque and Attorney General Mahbubey Alam
were present. … The Prime Minister raised the point regarding the 16th Amendment Judgment. What
I had suspected proved true.’

Pg 433: ‘The Prime Minister told me that Article 116 (relating to control of the subordinate judiciary)
cannot be restored because Bangabandhu himself changed it with the Fourth Amendment. … She
advised me that the situation (regarding control of subordinate judiciary) should be resolved
through mutual discussion. I knew that the Prime minister had a soft corner for the Law Secretary
without knowing his real character … I told her that under the present set up it was not at all
possible for resolving any difference mutually, because all the time the Law Ministry wanted to push
corrupt officers into responsible posts with a view to serving their purpose.’

Pg 433: ‘The Prime Minister requested me to somehow give the verdict in favour of the government.
… The Prime Minister, the Law Minister and the Attorney General were repeatedly pressing me to
give my opinion in favour of the Government, even if the other judges gave their opinion against the
government. When I was unmoved, the Prime Minister lost her temper. Then she abruptly expressed
her dissatisfaction towards me stating that she had all information regarding me.’

11
21. Role of the Attorney General in influencing the judgment of the 16th
Amendment Case
Pg 434: ‘The Attorney General was not only pressurizing me but was also making entreaties to
change my mind. … I was very offended on hearing the entreaties of the Attorney General but
controlled my annoyance. Though unethical, the Prime Minister and the Law Minister could request
me for political reasons, but the position of the Attorney General was completely different. He is not
the Attorney General of the government only, rather in the true sense he is the Attorney General for
Bangladesh.’

22. CJ Sinha wants to resign, but not allowed.

Pg 434-435: ‘The matter reached a point of heated debate. … (Since) the President was right before
us, I wanted to step down at that very moment if she insisted that I express my opinion in favour of
the government. The Prime Minister then said, why you would resign. Whatever might be the result
of the appeal, I should continue till the date of my retirement’.

23. CJ Sinha persuades two reluctant Judges to change their views – Judges
decide to prepare separate opinions – CJ’s draft judgment leaked to govt. by
a member of the Bench
Pg 436-437: CJ Sinha discusses obtaining the opinion of all the judges before pronouncing the full
court’s judgment noting that Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Justice Hasan Foez Siddiqui wanted
to deliver judgments in favour of the government. CJ Sinha recounts, ‘They (Syed Mahmud Hossain
and Hasan Foez Siddiqui) could not ignore the Prime Minister’s request because the carrot was
dangling near their mouth.’

Pg 439: After convincing all the Judges of the Appellate Division to dismiss the appeal, CJ Sinha
notes, ‘After putting on our gowns, we sat in court. There was pin drop silence in the court though it
was packed. I switched on the microphone, and declared ‘The appeal is dismissed unanimously’.

Pg 439-440: CJ Sinha notes that initially the judges agreed that there would be one judgment only to
be written by the CJ. Subsequently, each of the other Judges expressed an intention to write out
separate judgments. CJ Sinha takes the view that his draft judgment was leaked to the government,
which in turn pressurised the other Judges. CJ Sinha recounts, ‘The moment Abdul Wahhab Miah
wanted to add something. I had reasons to believe that some maneuvering was going in the matter
and my draft copy of the judgment had been communicated to the government by any one of them
… All the time, I was requesting my brother judges to maintain secrecy about our talks and opinions
on legal matters, but it did not yield any result …’

Pg 442-465: Summary of CJ Sinha’s judgment in the 16th Amendment Case

24. Criticism of the 16th Amendment Judgment by ABM Khairul Haque and
Anisul Haque
Pg 467: CJ Sinha discusses the press conference of ABM Khairul Haque criticising his judgment and
notes, ‘Immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment, ABM Khairul Haque called an
unprecedented press conference on August 5, 2017 attacking the judgment and me personally. … It
is shocking to see how a former CJ is not only demeaning but also undermining the other judges of
the highest court. … I find no proper language to make any comment on his uncourteous remarks.’

12
Pg 467-468: CJ Sinha observes that ABM Khairul Haque and Anisul Haque, the Law Minister
‘exceeded all norms’ in criticising the judgment and ‘caused much loss to the judiciary’. He notes,
‘Thereafter, the judges, one by one, except two started expressing opinions of their own. It was clear
to me that there was a lot of string pulling going on. Someone was pulling strings from behind the
screen and the puppets were performing giving lot of joy to the audience… ‘

25. Criticism of observations made by Syed Mahmud Hossain and Hasan

Foez Siddiqui
Pg 469: CJ Sinha notes that Syed Mahmud Hossain and Hasan Foez Siddiqui had observed (in their
judgments) that he (Sinha) had made observations regarding Article 116 of the Constitution which
was not an issue at all in the appeal. According to CJ Sinha, ‘I am sorry to say, they (Syed Mahmud
Hossain and Hasan Foez Siddiqui) have little conception of judicial review on constitutional issues.
Possibly they could not comprehend the Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment and Masdar Hossain,
not to speak of Kesavananda and Marbury. I strongly believe and still hold the view that their
opinions were made to be given from a certain corner in the same manner as they did in the case of
the two Ministers in contempt proceedings’.

26. PM’s criticism of 16th Amendment Judgment based on remarks by

sycophants
Pg 474-475: Referring to the PM’s criticism of his judgment, CJ Sinha notes, ‘… a public meeting was
called in Dhaka in which the ministers, including the Prime Minister made unprecedented remarks
against me’ and points out that ‘These statements proved beyond doubt that she (PM) was making
the statements as per advice of the sycophants because she is totally detached from the public and
the law. The sycophants misquoted my remark in court … Even then the Prime Minister accepted the
sycophants’ statement. The Prime Minister was fearing that I would take legal actions against the
persons whose names were published in the Panama Papers in the same manner as the Supreme
Court of Pakistan …’

27. Criticism of Prime Minister

Pg 475-476: After referring to the PM’s criticism of his judgment, CH Sinha observes, ‘The Prime
Minister was not properly advised, which is evident from her remarks about the appointment of
Chief Justice by the President. She failed to comprehend a Westminster type of parliamentary
government. … … the appointment of Chief Justice by the President is not a favour, rather it is (a)
constitutional obligation… She failed to distinguish between constitutional obligation of President
and election of the President.’

Pg 477: CJ Sinha goes on to add, ‘Not only the Prime Minister, the Ministers and her party men were
making comments against me personally. It was only because there was none in the country to
challenge her authority and she does not tolerate anyone who has any courage to speak against her
desire and certainly never in front of her. Another aspect she could not forget was that I had
managed to change the opinion of the two judges, after they were convinced by her. It amounted to
interference in the administration of justice by the Chief Executive’.

28. CJ Sinha decides to resign again

Pg 477-478: CJ Sinha intimated his decision to the Attorney General that he wanted to resign.
However, Dr. Gowher Rizvi called Sinha and stated that ‘the Prime Minister told him that I should

13
not resign and that I must continue in my office till retirement’. The Attorney General also informed
CJ Sinha that ‘whatever Dr. Gowher Rizvi said was the correct message from the Prime Minister’.

29. Harassment by intelligence agencies – CJ Sinha persuaded not to return

to country – Law Secretary had an interest in preventing him from
returning – Unprecedented defiance of Chamber Judge- Reflections on the
role of DGFI:
Pg 478: ‘Immediately after the conference (in Japan) in the late afternoon, a representative of the
DGFI intimated to me that I should not return to the country and I must go to Australia or Canada for
the time being … (I) told him that I would return to the country at any cost. After some time the
officer told me in that case I should return after seven days. I was surprised to note that the DGFI
had final say over the Prime Minister. … (An) elite intelligence of the country exceeded its norms by
regulating the affairs of the Chief Justice of a country. ..’

Pg 478-479: Regarding the purpose of forcibly attempting to overstay for a further 7 days, CJ Sinha
writes, ‘… it was to suit the purpose of the Law Secretary. After the superannuation of the Law
Secretary … , the government extended his tenure for two more years without consultation with the
Chief Justice … and his order of extension was stayed by the High Court Division. … The matter would
appear in the court on reopening day for a hearing. … I guessed with a view to avoid me in the
hearing of the matter, the DGFI wanted me to overstay for seven days abroad.’

Pg 479: Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain, as Chamber Judge disobeyed the direction of CJ Sinha to refer
the matter of the Law Secretary’s extension to the full court. CJ Sinha writes, ‘… Syed Mahmud
Hossain, J disobeying and violating decorum and precedents made an interim order of stay and fixed
the matter for hearing after reopening …’

Pg 479-480: A DGFI official met CJ Sinha in Changi airport, Singapore, but CJ Sinha rebuked him.
Upon reaching Dhaka from Singapore, DGFI officials once again wanted to sit with CJ Sinha, but he
refused.

Pg 480-481: Lamenting on the treatment meted out by DGFI, CJ Sinha writes, ‘I was convinced that
even the Prime Minister’s opinion had been negated by the DGFI. Either that or the Prime Minister
had indicated them to humiliate me because otherwise they could not have gone to this extent. … I
was wondering who had control of State power: the Prime Minister or the DGFI. I thought it must be
the latter or they could not have taken such audacious steps. …’

30. Appellate Division Judges refuse to sit with CJ Sinha on President’s

direction:
Pg 482: 5 Judges of the Appellate Division headed by Justice Abdul Wahhab Miah met CJ Sinha and
told him that the President had directed them not to sit with him (Sinha). Justice Wahhab Miah
informed CJ Sinha that ‘the President disclosed to them some allegations which were very serious’
and thereafter, the Judges ‘advised me that I should not come to court reminding me that if I go to
court, they along with all the judges of the High Court Division would not attend the conventional
ceremony of meeting the … lawyers on reopening day.’

14
31. Criticism of the Judges of the Appellate Division:
Pg 482: ‘… I could not even imagine hearing such words from none other than all the judges of the
highest court … in my absence they were all influenced by the government and fell in its trap. They
failed to understand that they have betrayed their own conscience and thereby destroyed the image
of the Supreme Court. … We all delivered the judgment of the 16th Amendment Case unanimously.
But they had taken a U-turn… (It) was clear to me that all the judges except one from the Appellate
Division hatched a conspiracy with the President and the Law Minister. Or in the alternative, the Law
Minister hatched a conspiracy with the help of the DGFI and convinced the President to arrange a
dinner for the judges … ’

Pg 482-483: ‘… If (the Judges) were clear in their conscience they would not have fallen into the trap
of the government and attended dinner (with the President) without me. The judges did not disclose
anything about what type of serious complaints were against me.’ (Later, Mirza Hossain Haider, J
informed CJ Sinha that the allegation against him was that he had siphoned Tk 4 crores to his
younger daughter in Canada.)

Pg 483: Regarding the conduct of the 5 Judges of the Appellate Division, CJ Sinha writes, ‘they had
totally ignored their own opinions in the 16th Amendment verdict. They had unanimously formulated
the Code of Conduct … that ‘justice must not only be done but it must also be seen to be done’. …
Did they not violate their own code of conduct?’

Pg 484: After referring to the provision for disciplining a CJ by the Supreme Judicial Council, as
decided in the 16th Amendment Case, (which were not followed in his forced removal) CJ Sinha
observes, ‘The Judges totally ignored the Code of Conduct which they formulated only three months
ago. If the judges of the highest court are purchased or influenced by the government so cheaply,
what would be the fate of the general litigants. … They themselves overruled the 16th Amendment
judgment without affording the Chief Justice to know the allegations, no to speak of affording me of
any opportunity to comment on the allegations … If the process is so simple why should there be
hearing of any constitutional matter in open court … ?They left nothing more for the Court to
consider in any matter, because they can decide the fate of the Chief Justice of the country as per
the advice of the President. … If the Chief Justice does not get justice, who else would get justice in
the present set up? … An employee in the administration is entitled to protection under the Rules of
1985, but the Chief Justice is not entitled to any such protection!’

Pg 484-485: CJ Sinha continues his criticism of his fellow judges, noting ‘They trampled on the
Constitution which was written with the blood of the martyrs. I feel ashamed to speak about them.
They acted as stooges in the hands of the Executive. They also crushed the independence of the
judiciary. The hopes and faith of the citizens in the Supreme Court … had been totally demolished
and shattered by these Judges’.

32. Criticism of the President- Excessive power in the hands of DGFI:

Pg 485: ‘(The President) proved himself as a stooge in the hands of the Prime Minister or the DGFI. …
He has no capacity to stand for his conviction and performed as a handpicked pliable person. He did
not show any respect to his oath to faithfully discharge the duties of office … I had believed that he
was a gentleman par excellence, but it was artificial. How could he dictate the judges of the highest
court not to sit with the Chief Justice … ? His conduct was unethical and unconstitutional. … …. ….

15
(Now) I firmly believed that whatever our President has done or achieved, the highest office of the
country was not his achievement, but it is because he had reposed trust in the Prime Minister or that
the Prime Minister found him faithful. He violated his oath and the Constitution by directing the
judges of the highest court not to sit with the Chief Justice …’

Pg 486: ‘… If the DGFI is used against the Chief Justice and all affairs of the State are resolved
through this force, why have we kept a Constitution? If the DGFI is above the law, who will enquire
against them if they commit any offence? If the Chief can be kept in solitary confinement by this
force, it may be taken that they are above all. …’

33. Circumstances compelling CJ Sinha to take leave – repeated visits by

DGFI – Dubious role of Law Minister:
Pg 488: Director General of DGFI met the CJ on October 2, 2017 and asked him to take leave for four
months until the date of his retirement on 31st January 2018. CJ Sinha notes, ‘I declined … and then
said … I will not do anything without talking with the Prime Minister.’ The DG, DGFI then said that
the Prime Minister would not speak to him (i.e., Sinha).

Pg 489: ‘I realised that all the judges were against me and if the administration was totally hostile to
me, how could I survive? Finding no other alternative, I decided to go on leave for one month only
instead of three months for the interest of the judiciary …. My leave petition was prepared by DGFI
officials as I came to know. … After returning home, I noticed that my security was tightened. I was
completely kept in a condition of house arrest. No outsider could enter my house … On October 3,
2017, the DGFI Chief wanted to know from me over phone if I wanted to be admitted to a hospital.
But I did not want to go to any hospital… ’

Pg 490: When the Law Minister went to meet the CJ at his residence during his confinement, CJ
Sinha became very angry with him and called him a ‘hypocrite’.

Pg 490: On October 5, 2017, the DGFI Chief met the CJ at his residence and pressurised him to leave
the country. CJ Sinha recounts, ‘I declined his proposal. Then he left my residence saying that I must
leave the country on October 7 or 8.’ After this discussion, CJ Sinha had a discussion with Dr Gowher
Rizvi who said that he will come on October 6. When Dr Rizvi met the CJ at his residence, the CJ
‘reminded him that he had prevented me from stepping down’ and ‘requested him to arrange a
meeting with the Prime Minister’. Although Dr Rizvi assured the CJ that he would arrange a meeting,
later he remained silent.

Pg 491: CJ decided to leave the country on October 13, 2017 after taking the President’s permission.

Pg 492: Referring to executive machinations to force the CJ to say that he was ill, CJ Sinha notes, ‘It
was a device of the Law Minister, who had never dealt with the Constitution and had only dealt with
criminal matters previously. So in his estimation on a bare reading of Article 97 of the Constitution,
he realised that if I took leave on the ground of some ailment or got admitted to hospital, it would
be easier for the government to assign Justice Abdul Wahhab Miah to perform the functions of the
Chief Justice.’

16
34. Criticism of Justice Abdul Wahhab Miah
Pg 492: CJ Sinha criticises Justice Abdul Wahhab Miah for ‘behaving as if he was the Chief Justice’
and becoming the ‘mouth piece of the government’ who ‘wanted to satisfy the government,
particularly, the Ministry of Law.’

35. Corruption allegations against CJ

Pg 492: ‘… Ekattur TV, a loyalist of the political party in power organised talk shows with political
puppets of the government and started propaganda of alleged corruption against me’.

36. Further criticism of Justice Abdul Wahhab Miah:

Pg 494-496: ‘I could not believe how a judge like Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah whom I had trusted and
given an independent bench … which my predecessor did not during his tenure, could publish on the
Supreme Court about my alleged corruption … following the advice of his two junior judges
(presumably CJ Sinha is referring to Justice Enayetur Rahim and Justice Obaidul Hasan) and Anisul
Haque. Justice Abdul Wahhab Miah turned into an obliging puppet in the hands of the Law Minister
who had those preposterous allegations put on the website. … I was reminded of the picture of
Khandaker Mushtaque Ahmed at that time. Justice Abdul Wahhab Miah was a carbon copy of
Khandaker Mushtaque Ahmed.

Pg 496: Justice Abdul Wahhab Mia transferred judicial officers in his new role although he did not
have the authority to do so. ‘Even those transfer orders were not made with the approval of the GA
(General Administration) Committee which is the only authority to transfer judicial officers … He had
assented to the list sent by the Law Ministry …’

Pg 496-497: CJ Sinha continues his criticism of Justice Wahhab Miah as follows: ‘He fell in love with
the power of the office of the Chief Justice to such an extent that he was desperately implementing
all wishes of the Ministry of Law …During his tenure in the Appellate Division (he) proved that he
was a fanatical person and therefore in no case would the Awami League make him the Chief Justice
of Bangladesh. This was known to us for a long time. The government used to reach their goals by
dangling the prospect of the office of Chief Justice in front of him…’ CJ Sinha mentions how ‘despite
intimation the Supreme Court did not send any message to the relevant government offices
regarding the itinerary of his wife’ causing her hardship as a transit passenger in travelling from
Singapore to Australia.

37. CJ not allowed to resign with the purpose of humiliating him – Govt.
expected Sinha to be grateful after being appointed as CJ
Pg 497-498: Noting that he had wanted to resign on two prior occasions but was not allowed to do
so, CJ Sinha observes, ‘I was not allowed (to resign) … with a view to humiliate me as a measure of
taking revenge for the Sixteenth Amendment Judgment. The Prime Minister had committed a
blunder. … She debased a Chief Justice who is the guardian of the Judiciary as per the advice of the
Law Minister, Law Secretary and the DGFI. …’

Pg 504: ‘Law Minister Anisul Haque hinted to me on many occasions about my selection process
reminding me that he along with the Prime Minister and the President were present at
BangaBhaban while decision (to appoint me) as the only minority Chief Justice of Bangladesh. He

17
wanted to say, as I was given such an opportunity to occupy the most prestigious office, I should not
do anything which may put the government in embarrassment.’

38. Travels to Australia, Canada and the US – Abduction of Aniruddha Roy –

Resignation of CJ on condition of Aniruddha’s release
Pg 505-6: CJ Sinha went to Australia, then Canada and now has finally settled in New Jersey.

Pg 508-512: Aniruddha Roy, honorary Consul General of Belarus was picked up from Gulshan by the
DGFI. It was suggested that the allegations of corruption were made against CJ Sinha on the basis of
statements of Aniruddha Roy. While flying from Australia to Canada via Singapore, DGFI officers met
CJ Sinha in Singapore. On their request, Sinha extended his stay in Singapore, and finally agreed to
tender his resignation, but not before ensuring that the abducted Consul General was returned
safely to his family.

39. Reflections on the authoritarianism of the Chief Executive

Pg 513: Reflecting on the treatment he suffered at the hands of Sheikh Hasina, CJ Sinha writes, ‘I
could not imagine … that the leader I had seen very closely with much cordiality could be so cruel
towards me. I thought over the matter … and concluded that she was an educated and mature
politician and possessed many good qualities; she had committed no wrong. But the power in her
hands made her rude and cruel; she was hungering for power and wanted to remain in power by any
means. … … She alone could not remain in power for such a long period of time without the
assistance of many of us but the moment she consolidated her powers without taking a mandate of
the people she became rude. She herself did not believe in 2014 that she would remain in power till
2018 and that is why breaking all norms she hurriedly took oath before expiry of the previous term
and even before dissolving the Ninth Parliament. All that was possible only due to the weakness of
the opposition political party, the support of a neighbouring regional superpower and the judiciary’s
role. Everyone assumed that there would be fresh elections within two years. But all assessments
proved false due to the unconditional support of … India.’

40. Criticism of the role of India in Bangladesh affairs:

Pg 513: ‘India should realise that it has made many positive contributions to Bangladesh but at the
same time there is a dark side also. … The black chapter is that it is behaving as a ‘big brother’ with
us instead of being an ‘elder brother’. It has diverted water from all rivers into Bangladesh … The
balance of trade and commerce is also lopsidedly in favour of India …. It has been purposely …
supporting a government which has no respect for democracy, rule of law and human rights.
Corruption is rampant, forced disappearances of citizens by security forces are a regular feature …
The government is run largely with the support of the security services. …

41. Criticism of incorrect advice tendered by Law Minister and Attorney

General
Pg 519: Regarding the appointment under Article 97 of the Constitution, CJ Sinha observes, ‘The
Attorney General said that the appointment of the Chief Justice is the prerogative power of the
President and the power can be exercised by him at any time he deems fit. The President is not
above the Constitution and he must perform his constitutional obligations … These opinions are
contrary to the Constitution and devoid of substance. The Law Minister and the Attorney General
had created a deadlock by giving ill advice out of ignorance to the government. A country cannot be

18
run in such a manner with persons having stunning dearth of knowledge on constitutional matters
and laws of the country.’

19