Source: https://farhaanahmed.com/2014/09/29/an-analysis-of-rule-of-law-and-the-separation-of-judiciary-in-bangladesh-in-light-of-the-8th-amendment-case-and-masdar-hossain-case/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:31:37+00:00

Document:
* This paper was written in August 2014 as an assignment in an undergraduate course on Administrative Law.
Rule of law and the separation of powers, specifically the judiciary have been the inherent features of the Constitution since its adoption right after the independence of Bangladesh. The cases; Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v. Bangladesh (hereinafter referred to as the 8th Amendment case) and Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Masdar Hossain (hereinafter referred to as the Masdar Hossain case) have had great implications on the two aforementioned principles and brought about significant changes in the interpretation and implementation of these two principles in the Constitution and also on the Legislative and Executive branches of the State.
Six permanent benches of the High Court Division were set up in the various Divisions outside Dhaka through the Constitution (Eighth Amendment) Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as the Amendment) by the amendment of Article 100 of the Constitution. The Amendment was challenged on the basis of its constitutionality in two writ petitions which were summarily dismissed by the High Court Division; however, on appeal the Appellate Division declared the Amendment ultra vires to the Constitution on the fundamental ground that Article 7; ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution is a basic structure and thus an unalterable feature of the Constitution, thus, the power to amend the Constitution under Article 142 is not unlimited. The impugned Amendment because of its attempt to alter a basic feature of the Constitution was declared to be ultra vires. The majority was formed by Justice Badrul Haider Chowdhury, Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed and Justice M.H. Rahman; while Justice A.T.M. Afzal dissented.
(b) Their exercise on behalf of the people, shall be effected only under, and by the authority of this Constitution. Limited government with three organs performing designated functions is envisaged. In the Proclamation it was said the President “shall exercise all the Executive and Legislative powers of the Republic” “till such time as Constitution is framed” and who will do all other things that may be necessary to give to the people of Bangladesh an orderly and just Government.
Justice Ahmed goes on to further elaborate the structural and functional problems that have arisen due to the impugned Amendment with regard to the functions of the newly created divisional benches and the power of Justices of the High Court Division.
Therefore, Justice Rahman strongly opined that the rule of law as a basic pillar of the Constitution can never be disputed or disrupted even through constitutional amendments.
Justice A.T.M. Afzal, in his dissenting opinion, rejected the notion of a ‘basic structure’ and stated that the limitation on the power of amendment is an inherent part of Article 7 of the Constitution, it functions as the benchmark and all Articles of the Constitution can be amended. He opined that the impugned Amendment did not interfere with the jurisdiction of the High Court Division and has not rendered the Constitution ineffectual. He also held that the Supreme Court as the guardians of the Constitution has the duty to safeguard the Constitution through the exercise of its power of judicial review at the instance of aggrieved persons with great restraint and after weighing the entailing consequences.
Therefore, the Appellate Division held that the constitutional basis of the recruitment, pay, posting and management of the Judiciary is separate from that of the Executive and hence, one unilateral body cannot perform the above-mentioned functions for the both the Executive and the Judiciary. More importantly, principally the Appellate Division held that for the unbiased and fair functioning of the Judiciary it is essential that the Judiciary is not the chained to the Executive through various administrative links.
The aforementioned cases have drastically changed the constitutional landscape of Bangladesh. The 8th Amendment case not only enforced the supremacy of the Constitution but also provided fundamental outlines towards the interpretation of the constitution and the enforcement of its provisions. It held that the legislature does not have unfettered power to amend and alter the Constitution, thereby ensuring the furtherance of rule of law by enforcing the inherent check and balance mechanism that is aimed through the separation of powers. The Masdar Hossain Case goes a step further by providing policy directions to the government to ensure the independence of the judiciary and uphold the basic features of the Constitution, and also further the aims and objectives enunciated as the Fundamental Principles of State Policy.
 Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v. Bangladesh (1989) 41 DLR (AD) 165.
 Secretary Ministry of Finance v. Masdar Hossain (2000) BLD (AD) 104.
 Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v. Bangladesh (1989) 41 DLR (AD) 165, para. 58.
 Secretary Ministry of Finance v. Masdar Hossain (2000) BLD (AD) 104, para. 4.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.