By Hemayet Hossain

The recent heated altercations between the Chief Justice, accompanied by fellow judges of the Appellate Division, and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President, Barrister A.M. Mahbub Uddin Khokon, which ultimately led to the judges leaving the courtroom, mark a deeply alarming chapter in Bangladesh's legal history.

While such an exodus from the bench of the country's highest court is exceptionally rare, treating this incident as an isolated breach of decorum would be a grave oversight. Beneath the surface lies a compounding matrix of long-standing administrative paralysis, structural bottlenecks, and political instability that continues to erode the judiciary's foundation.

The immediate flashpoint emerged over the bench's decision to uphold a fine imposed for withholding information in a case. Tensions boiled over when the SCBA President urged the court to increase the number of active benches to address a massive backlog and accommodate hearing requests. Categorizing the remarks as contemptuous, the Chief Justice and his colleagues exited the courtroom. Coming just before the Supreme Court entered its annual long vacation, this unprecedented standoff left litigators and litigants in profound uncertainty.

To understand the severity of this breakdown, one must examine the socio-political shocks absorbed by the judiciary in recent years. Executive overreach previously delivered a devastating blow to judicial independence when former Chief Justice S.K. Sinha was coerced into resigning and leaving the country. More recently, in the wake of the mass uprising on August 5, 2024, the Supreme Court premises witnessed severe unrest and mob intimidation, culminating in the forced resignations of the then-Chief Justice and several Appellate Division judges. This recurring cycle of political weaponization and coercive pressure has systematically damaged the judiciary’s institutional prestige.

Simultaneously, the fallout from judicial delays is inflicting immense harm on everyday citizens and young legal professionals alike. Tens of thousands of writ petitions concerning income tax, VAT, customs, and financial debt remain frozen in the High Court Division for years. This administrative inertia locks up hundreds of billions of Taka in public revenue and stifles broader commercial activity. As cases drag on indefinitely without resolution, public faith in the legal process wanes, fueling mistrust between litigants and their counsel.

For newly enrolled and junior lawyers, the lack of functional benches has triggered a crisis of professional survival. Deprived of adequate hearing opportunities, many face severe financial instability. The SCBA's persistent demand to expand the number of active benches stems directly from this systemic gridlock affecting the bar’s younger members.

Resolving this volatile impasse requires swift, structural intervention. 

The Attorney General’s Office, senior members of the SCBA, and the judicial leadership must convene formal consultative sessions to rebuild professional decorum and mutual respect between the Bench and the Bar.

 The High Court Division should allocate dedicated benches to expedite high-stakes tax, revenue, and commercial disputes, freeing clogged state resources and restoring commercial momentum.

Political interference in judicial appointments and courtroom proceedings must cease. Furthermore, given the gravity of the situation, the President acting in coordination with the Supreme Judicial Council could initiate high-level mediation to safeguard the court's integrity.

Without a functional, harmonious relationship between the Bench and the Bar, public trust in the administration of justice risks total collapse. The highest court of the land cannot afford to remain a battleground of institutional friction; comprehensive reforms are no longer optional, but imperative.