A full court of the Appellate Division headed by Chief Justice Syed JR Mudassir Husain also directed the officials to appear in person before court at 9:00am on December 11 to explain their position.

The order came after the attorney general, as asked by the court, explained why repeated time extensions were sought to implement a 12-point directive given by the court for separation of the judiciary way back in December 1999.

The court grilled Attorney General AF Hassan Ariff during yesterday's hearing, when it found "contradictory and confusing" the opinions of an inter-ministerial committee of bureaucrats on framing rules for the newly constituted judicial service. The law ministry had sought opinion of the bureaucrats' committee on the draft rules.

The court also questioned how the bureaucrats dared to disagree with the final drafts of the rules when these were awaiting final approval by the president.

The Appellate Division had corrected and sent back to the law ministry two drafts for formation of the Bangladesh Judicial Service (Constitution, Recruitment, Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules 2004 and the Bangladesh Judicial Service (Posting, Promotion, Leave, Control, Discipline and other Service Conditions) Rules 2004.

The law ministry sent the corrected drafts to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) for the president's approval last month. But the establishment ministry took the drafts back from the PMO and set up an inter-ministerial review committee.

On November 1, the committee reviewed the drafts and sent its opinions to the ministries concerned.

When the SC asked the government yesterday why it has been repeatedly requesting for time extension to separate the judiciary from the executive wing of state, the attorney general submitted documents containing the opinion of the inter-ministerial bureaucrats' meeting.

But the court found the opinions of the bureaucrats contravene the sprit of the SC's 12-point directive and subsequent orders.

The court asked the attorney general to read out the minutes of the inter-ministerial committee meeting. After listening to the minutes, the court expressed its anger and dissatisfaction at the points of disagreements the inter-ministerial committee expressed on the two draft proposals.

"Are secretaries to correct and mould the court's directives from now on?" the court asked the attorney general.

It observed that the president and parliament were to use their wisdom once it returned the two corrected drafts to the law ministry.

"Are we to depend on the wisdom of the government officials too?" the court retorted.

The attorney general then asked for an extension of four more months for implementation of the 12-point directive. The court replied: "We will look into the issue of time extension later. First, let those nine government officials explain their actions to the court."

The inter-ministerial bureaucrats' committee said there was a disparity between the court directives and two law ministry drafts on separation of the judiciary.

Reacting to opinions of the committee, the court said: "How dare the government officials question whether we (the SC) or the law ministry is right?"

Reviewing the inter-ministerial committee's opinions, the court observed that according to the Criminal Procedure Code, an appeal against the magistrate's court can be made at the sessions judges' court. But it seems the committee wants the appeal to be made to assistant and joint secretaries.

They added that according to articles 115, 116 and 116 (a), magistrates are part of the judicial service, but the inter-ministerial committee said they are not.

The officials who have to appear before court are Lokman Hakim, joint secretary; Badrul Alam Tarafdar, joint secretary; Mohammad Abdur Rab Hawladar, joint secretary; Mohamad Abul Kalam Azad Chakladhar, deputy secretary and Khalilur Rahman, senior assistant secretary of the establishment ministry; Shafiqul Islam Talukdar, deputy secretary, and Mohammad Harunur Rashid, senior assistant secretary of the law ministry; Mohammad Fazlul Haque, deputy secretary of the cabinet division; and AKM Motaleb Hossain, deputy secretary of the finance ministry.

After the court order, Law Minister Moudud Ahmed told newspersons that the government's reply submitted to the court did not distort the court's directives. He said the government officials will appear in court to state this position.

On the other hand, Dr Kamal Hossain, intervenor of the case, said the show-cause notice implies that everyone has to respect the higher judiciary.