The High Court today made seven observations over the Supreme Court administration’s letter to the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) about retired Judge Mohammad Jainul Abedin, saying that the letter tarnished the image of the court.
“The impugned letter has impaired as well as tarnished the image and dignity of the highest court of the country in the estimation of the public at large,” the High Court observed.
The bench of Justice M Enayetur Rahim and Justice Shahidul Karim came up with the observation while delivering a verdict on the rule issued over the legality of the Supreme Court administration’s letter to the ACC about Justice Jainul Abedin.
Justice Enayetur Rahim said, the letter is amenable to judicial review as it was issued by the office of the Appellate Division under its administrative capacity and therefore the rule is quiet maintainable.
The judge said the conduct of the ACC in dealing with the inquiry process against Jainul Abedin is not at all satisfactory for the simple reason that it has failed to complete the process during the last seven years.
Justice Enayetur said the “relevant investigation agency or authority should be extra cautious and vigilant while conducting inquiry for investigation against a retired judge of the Supreme Court keeping in view the dignity and prestige of the judiciary as well as the fact that the scale of justice and peoples’ confidence is reposed in it so that no one is subjected to unnecessary harassment and humiliation with any ulterior motive.”
He said, issuing the impugned letter the relevant authority has taken into consideration some extraneous and irrelevant facts and circumstances which has rendered the bona fide of the said authorities in question.
“The impugned letter is near official communication made by the office of the Appellate Division under its administrative capacity and in no way it can be regarded as the opinion of the Supreme Court,” the judge said.
Justice Enayetur said in the observation that the impugned letter though tends to give a message that a retired judge of the Supreme Court is immune from criminal prosecution but, in fact, no one is immune as such save the president and that too during his term at office.