Obviously, the time consumed so far in this respect has been unduly long. This is unfortunate considering that independence of the judiciary is a constitutional requirement and also a pledge of the ruling BNP dating back to the last general election. The latest deposition by the Attorney General before the court suggests that the government has its own interpretation of certain points embodied in the court directives. The court has taken a clear position by directing the government to submit what it has prepared for the president's approval. Now it is up to the government to respond quickly to the court directive.

Some questions arise at this point of time regarding the government position on separating the judiciary. It is no doubt a complex issue, but still the time wasted on it so far might give the impression that the government wants to retain control over the magistracy, which is to form the lower rung of the judiciary under the Supreme Court once the judiciary becomes fully independent. The continuing tension between the government and the Supreme Court may also erode public confidence in the system.

Things have been made hazier by Communications Minister Barrister Nazmul Huda's observation in the parliament to the effect that the court's setting of time limits for the separation of the judiciary on the basis of a writ petition was in violation of the constitution. It sounds like an attempt to defend the undue procrastination in carrying out the court orders.

An elected government is only expected to act with a sense of purpose and constitutional obligation to do everything that will facilitate the grant of full independence to the judiciary.