A recent High Court verdict brought the Warrant of Precedence into the centre of discussion as its longstanding practice would be changed if the government revises the current precedence following the court verdict.
The HC verdict, which declared the existing Warrant of Precedence illegal and void on Thursday, sparked mixed reaction among people in the judicial arena and administration.
In its verdict, the HC bench said, “As the constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, all constitutional office-holders are to be placed first in order of priority in the table of the new Warrant of Precedence.”
The directives came following a writ petition filed by a district judge in 2006.
The complete judgment was not available yet, but what drew attention of most is that district judges will get priority over secretaries and the chiefs of the three forces. According to the existing Warrant of Precedence, district judges’ position is just one step above deputy secretaries almost at the bottom of the list.
Despite the issue being discussed in every corner of the administration, none of the serving bureaucrats is willing to make any comment on the record.
A few top-level bureaucrats only told The Daily Star that they are observing everything and want to wait until the case is disposed in the Supreme Court.
Attorney General Mahbubey Alam yesterday appealed with the SC against the HC directives for revising the Warrant of Precedence.
He told The Daily Star that an unstable situation might arise in all sections of the government because of the HC verdict. The existing continuity of the precedence in the offices of the republic may be damaged creating indiscipline in the offices, he said.
Mahbubey Alam said the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court will now give the final decision on the matter.
When contacted, Cabinet Secretary Abdul Aziz said, “I think it would not be wise to say anything since the matter is pending with the court. Let it be settled…and then the government would be able to decide its next course of action.”
A few bureaucrats, meanwhile, said a meeting of secretaries scheduled today might discuss the issue of revising the Warrant of Precedence as per court order although it is not on the agenda.
“The meeting had been called before the court gave its verdict and this meeting is not linked to the verdict. If any secretary raises this point, it might be discussed,” said a secretary on condition of anonymity.
The Warrant of Precedence was formulated in 1975 and underwent some minor amendments up to 1986.
“Over the years this Warrant of Precedence has created an equilibrium in the overall structure of the state, so if it is necessary to change it overnight, it would likely to create a disequilibrium,” said a top bureaucrat.
“Definitely it would create some pressure on the administration and can also contribute misunderstanding between the judiciary and the administration if finally the Supreme Court directs to change the longstanding Warrant of Precedence overnight,” he said.
But Akbar Ali Khan, a retired top bureaucrat and also a former adviser to the caretaker government, thinks otherwise.
“I am worried about the constitutional implication of the court’s decision,” he told The Daily Star, explaining that it is absolutely a personal wish of the president and the prime minister to invite people to state programmes.
“But directing them in this regard should not be the function of the judiciary,” he said. The Warrant of Precedence is applicable to the state’s ceremonial occasions to set the seating arrangement of guests.
Akbar said the Warrant of Precedence has no constitutional or legal basis. “It was prepared following a government order. We can rethink whether the Warrant of Precedence, which is discriminatory, is needed in a democratic society,” he said.
About the court verdict, he said, “This is interference into the function of the executive by the judiciary. I think the executive is not subordinate to the judiciary, rather both are equal.”
However, people in the judicial arena think as the court has directed to revise the Warrant of Precedence and the government will have to carry this, so the people in the administration may now prefer to scrap it.
Justice Mohammad Gholam Rabbani, a former judge of the Appellate Division, said, “The court’s direction was necessary to settle the rule of law.
“Whatever the effectiveness of the Warrant of Precedence in state ceremonial occasions, the court directives, if implemented, will educate a government officer where he stands and what are his obligations,” said Rabbani.
Meanwhile, advocate Asaduzzaman, a counsel for the petitioner, said the writ petition was filed to ensure “constitutional supremacy” in preparing the Warrant of Precedence.
He said there are three organs of the state in the constitution–legislature, judiciary and executive. The post of a district judge is defined by the constitution and he is part of one of the three organs of the state, he explained.
But the constitution does not define the posts of the chiefs of army, navy and air force, who are not even part of those three organs.
“This three posts just have been mentioned by the constitution,” he argued, saying as all their grounds of argument were valid, the court directives came as per their prayer.
He also argued that secretaries hold supreme posts in the executive and district judges hold supreme posts in the judicial service, so why district judges’ position would be below the secretaries.
Categories: Bangla, Bangladesh, Bangladesh News, Bangladesh Politics, Daily Bangladesh News, News, Politics
