SC bans practice of two lawyers for four weeks on contempt allegation

SC bans practice of two lawyers for four weeks on contempt allegation

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Thursday asked two Supreme Court lawyers — Mohammad Mohsen Rashid and Shah Ahmed Badal — not to appear in courts for four weeks on the allegations of contempt of the court.

The two lawyers, being leaders of the Supreme Court Bar Association ad-hoc committee, earlier issued a letter to chief justice Obaidul Hassan urging him to adjourn hearings of cases in the absence of pro-opposition lawyers boycotted the proceedings of the courts from January 1 to January 7.

A four-judge bench chaired by the chief justice also deferred the hearing of the court proceedings against Mohsen and Badal as their lawyer AJ Mohammad Ali sought time for four weeks.

The Appellate Division on January 3 in a suo moto ruling asked Mohsen and Badal to personally explain their conduct over a letter issued by them on January 1 to the chief justice seeking adjournment of hearings.

‘The people will continue to repose trust in the institution of an independent, knowledgeable, and non-partisan judiciary to avoid anarchism and it is expected that the judiciary will and should play its role effectively as the protector of human rights and stand in solidarity by the side of those being denied their political and economic rights and those innocent citizens being persecuted by the fascist regime using the police and the judiciary,’ the letter said.

The letter said, ‘Both the police, who are enforcers of the law and the judiciary, seem to have become accessories in persecution and oppression of its own citizens.’

‘The denial of legitimate bail and conducting hasty trials has buried justice, and the same has become tools of oppression,’ the letter said.

The Appellate Division issued contempt notices to Mohsen and Badal taking into cognizance of the letter served on the office of the chief justice on January 1.

The Appellate Division observed that the statement of the letter tarnished the judiciary’s image which constituted contempt of the court.