The suo moto rule came a week into the speaker's ruling in parliament that suggested that the High Court take legal measures against the lawyers' agitation for removal of a controversial judge.

The court prohibited gathering, congregation, picketing and laying siege to the entrance to any court. It also slapped a ban on boycotting or abstaining from attending any court on the basis of any decision of any Bar associations or Bangladesh Bar Council.

The court also imposed a moratorium on activities interfering with judicial work or operations of any court or hindering access of any person to the courts. No rally can be held or human chain formed or sit-in demonstrations staged on the Supreme Court premises or any court premises in the name of any forum or the Bar associations.

Besides, no lawyer can circulate leaflets, put up banners or give statements to or publish them in any way through the press or any other media.

"This injunction shall particularly be binding upon all advocates practising in any courts of law in Bangladesh and further that in the event of any breach by anyone of this order, proper steps to enforce this order shall be taken including proceedings for contempt of court and in the case of advocates," the order says.

"Such steps shall include making orders prohibiting them from appearing in court as advocates so long as they shall remain in contempt," said the order issued by the bench of Justice Md Abdul Matin and Justice AFM Abdur Rahman.

However, the court says, "Any person affected by this order may apply to this court for an order setting aside or varying this order."

In case of such application, the attorney general will stand for the order while four senior lawyers will act as amicus curie (friend of the court). They are Dr Kamal Hossain, Rafique-ul Huq, Mahmudul Islam and Ajmalul Hossain.

The chairman of Bangladesh Bar Council has been directed to circulate this order to its members and the Supreme Court registrar to circulate the order through the media.

"A section of lawyers of the Supreme Court Bar Association have been agitating against a sitting judge of this court on the plea that the judge does not have the LLB certificate. (The) Bar Council cancelled his enrolment as an advocate when he is already a judge in this court and his certificate is suspended and when the cancellation was challenged before this court and the matter is sub judice they convened a meeting of the Bar Council with such sub judice matter [on] the agenda," the court noted.

It further observed that "a group of lawyers entered the courtroom of the judge and tried to obstruct him in the administration of justice. They took out a procession that paraded the corridors of the court while the judges were engaged in conducting the cases inside and thus interfered with the administration of justice".

"They took resolution to boycott the court of the judge and threatened to boycott the court of the chief justice. They [laid] siege on two occasions [to] the entrance of the chief justice to obstruct him from entering the court and they are giving out that they will paralyse the entire court if their demand of removing the judge is not accepted by the chief justice knowing full that a sitting judge can alone be removed and his capacity or conduct can be enquired into only under Article 96(4) (b) of the Constitution by the Supreme Judicial Council."

The High Court also observed that the Bar Council could have taken disciplinary action against these lawyers, but it failed.

"The judicial function of this court cannot be allowed to be stonewalled by these activities, browbeating, bullying methodology whether it is by public, litigants or lawyers," the ruling said.

It observed that another group of lawyers is opposing these lawyers. "The Supreme Court Bar Association, the symbol of the legal fraternity both on and off the Bench, is on the verge of disintegration and state of confrontation is looming large on the horizon threatening the whole justice delivery system," it said.

"VOICE GAGGED"
In his reaction to the unprecedented ruling, SCBA President Mahbubey Alam gagged his mouth with a handkerchief and said, "Our voice has been gagged."

"We will go for a legal battle against this order," he added.

Bangladesh Bar Council Member and Chairman of Human Rights and Legal Aid Committee of Bangladesh Bar Council Advocate ZI Khan Panna told The Daily Star, "This order is unconstitutional and unlawful. Even the martial law regime could not gag the voice of the lawyers."

"This order is an interference in the basic, professional and political rights of a lawyer," Panna added. "The Bar Council is considering legal steps against this order."

Ruling BNP's Law Secretary and General Secretary of Jatiyatabadi Ainjibi Jote Advocate Jainal Abedin welcomed the order, however. "The judge has the right to issue such an order if someone illegally hinders judicial works. After this order there will not be any hindrance to administration of justice according to the constitution by the judges."

CHRONOLOGY
In October 2004, vernacular national dailies the Daily Prothom Alo and Daily Bhorer Kagoj ran reports that results of law graduation examinations of Additional Judge Faisal Mahmud Faizee were tampered with, prompting the SCBA to boycott Faizee's court. The chief justice temporarily withdrew Faizee from his bench and the controversy-dogged judge did not sit in any bench for more than five months.

Earlier this year, the High Court punished Prothom Alo and Bhorer Kagoj journalists for contempt of court, saying that the reports did not prove Faizee's certificate fake, clearing way for Faizee to return to the court.

But the SCBA members continued boycotting Faizee's court, saying that it has not been proven that Faizee's certificate is genuine. Bangladesh Bar Council then cancelled Faizee's certificate of enrolment, a basic prerequisite for anyone to practise law in the country.

The SCBA intensified its movement, and staged demonstrations at Faizee's court and at the entryway of the chief justice demanding Faizee's removal. Pro-government lawyers and government law officials, meanwhile, threw their weight behind Faizee and took a stand against the SCBA.

Speaker Jamiruddin Sircar in the Jatiya Sangsad last week issued a ruling against the agitating lawyers. Law Minister Moudud Ahmed also made strong remarks against the agitation, prompting the SCBA to cancel memberships of both the speaker and the law minister.

At this, the pro-government lawyers, the speaker and the law minister made statements against the SCBA. Finally, on Saturday the pro-government lawyers declared three SCBA leaders "unwanted" on the Supreme Court premises.

Private news agency BDNEWS adds: Senior lawyers of the Supreme Court yesterday termed the High Court order the "first precedent in the history of the country's judiciary".

"I'm feeling very much disheartened, frustrated, disappointed and scared at the order of the High Court," SCBA chief Mahbubey Alam told the news agency.

Former vice chairman of Bangladesh Bar Council and convener of Sammilita Ainjibi Samannay Parishad Barrister M Amir-ul Islam said this is for the first time the High Court has imposed injunction on the movement of the lawyers.

"As far as I know, the High Court previously did not pass such order imposing injunction on the movement of the lawyers," he said.

He observed that independence of the judiciary is linked to the independence of the Bars.

"I am sure that the High Court will consider the matter of independence of the lawyers and Bars, and freedom of speech in the next hearing on the case. Independence of the judiciary is needed to establish rule of law in society," he said.

Former SCBA president Barrister Shafique Ahmed said if they wish, the SCBA and the Bar Council can fight a legal battle against the High Court order.

Former attorney general AF Hassan Ariff would not make an instant comment on the order. "I can comment only after going through the details," he said.