The chief justice in-charge, Md Abdul Wahhab Miah, on Thursday told the senior lawyers of Supreme Court Bar Association that the chief justice, Surendra Kumar Sinha, definitely stays at his official residence.
The chief justice in-charge also wanted to know from the SCBA president, Zainul Abedin, ‘Can the court dictate the government to allow somebody to meet the chief justice at his residence?’
The chief justice in-charge, however, asked the SCBA leaders to meet him at his chamber about the matter.
Abdul Wahhab Miah, who chaired a five-member Appellate Division bench in the morning, made the remarks after the bar president sought appropriate order from the court so that security guards permit lawyers to meet SK Sinha at his residence.
Former SCBA president Khandker Mahbub Hossain, Mainul Hossain, and AJ Mohammad Ali also took part in the hearing seeking directive for their access to the residence of the CJ.
Justice Wahhab Miah, however, told the lawyers that the court heard the grievance of the bar but it had nothing to say.
He also said that the court’s power under article 103 of the constitution does not permit it to deal such a matter.
Zainul Abedin said the SCBA has responsibility to upheld dignity of the apex court and that is why the lawyers came to it to for bringing a notice about the chief justice matter.
Justice Wahhab said he expected from the SCBA that they would meet him (the justice) to discuss over improvement of the judicial activities soon after he had taken charge as the chief justice in-charge.
‘But the bar did not come.’
‘Now you have come to the court with a grievance,’ he said.
SCBA is scheduled to resume an adjourned meeting with senior lawyers at 4:00pm today from where they would announce next course of action, Zainal told reporters.
On Monday, the chief justice was granted a one-month leave on health grounds with effect from Tuesday and Appellate Division’s senior most judge Md Abdul Wahhab Miah was given the charge for 30 days during the leave period of SK Sinha.
The chief justice was heavily criticised by the ministers and the ruling party leaders for his observations made in the verdict that had annulled the 16th amendment to the constitution.
Source: New Age
