The High Court's judgement on the ruling of the Speaker was 'provocative and conspiratorial', Minister Without Portfolio Suranjit Sengupta said on Tuesday.
His remarks came during an unscheduled discussion on the first day of its 14th session of Parliament.
Suranjit said, "Parliament won't exist if the Speaker's ruling is not enforced, nor does this judiciary or these judges. Issuing a verdict against his [Speaker] ruling is not only provocative, but also conspiratorial."
Speaker Abdul Hamid issued a ruling in May saying High Court judge Justice AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury violated the Constitution by making 'derogatory comment' about Parliament.
Following the observation, the bench of Justices Hasan Foez Siddique and ABM Altaf Hossain on July 24 declared the Speaker's June 18 ruling was 'non-existent in the eye of law' and 'has no legal basis after a petition sought the court's intervention over the Speaker's ruling that Justice Choudhury violated the Constitution's Article 78 (1).
Speaker Hamid pointed out on Tuesday, "The judiciary is certainly independent, but Parliament is sovereign."
He said that the Constitution was the highest law of the country and Parliament was its custodian. Addressing the MPs, Hamid said, "Let there be no doubt, let no one say this is a subjudice matter. We can most certainly discuss it here."
Suranjit later dubbed the court's verdict ad 'irresponsible'. "There is no martial law in which justices did not collude."
Earlier, Awami League lawmakers Tofail Ahmed and Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim, speaking on a point of order after the question-answer session, set the House on fire.
Parliament became heated with the MPs demanding revival of Bangladesh's original constitution of 1972, which allowed Parliament to impeach judges.
A former Commerce Minister and a long time party stalwart, Tofail also questioned the qualifications of the judges of the bench.
He said, "Now the High Court judges are appointed on political grounds, and I don't think Justice Altaf Hossain has even completed the mandatory 10-year attachment with the High Court before being appointed to the bench."
"I strongly believe this verdict was not decided in the courtroom," Tofail added.
He said, "We appoint High Court judges on political grounds, and I don't think Justice Altaf Hossain has even completed the mandatory 10-year attachment with the High Court before being appointed to the bench."
He said the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs should keep an eye on these appointments.
Tofail ended with a proposal to revive Bangladesh's original constitution of 1972, which allowed Parliament to impeach judges.
Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal MP Mainuddin Khan Badal said the court's observation was 'obsolete, obscene and obnoxious'. "This is a rather ominous sign," he added.
Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim also spoke on the same issue before Tofail. "The justices have given a bizarre, eerie verdict. The justices have stepped beyond their line."
"An independent judiciary does not mean anyone can say anything according to their own wishes. Justices are not beyond law. The judiciary is independent, but not sovereign."
He also demanded formation of Supreme Judicial Council to 'impeach' the Supreme Court judges.
Addressing the Speaker, Tofail raised questions over the identity and qualification of Deputy Attorney General Biswajit Roy who argued at the hearing against the Speaker.
He also questioned Justice ABM Altaf Hossain's qualifications for being a judge.
The senior ruling Awami League MP claimed recently appointed Justice Zafar Ahmed, nephew of Justice AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury, did not complete the mandatory 10-year attachment with the High Court as an advocate.
Justice Zafar Ahmed was enlisted as a lawyer in High Court Division in 1995.
Awami League MPs Sayedul Haque, Sheikh Fazle Noor Tapash, Fazle Rabbi Mia, Worker's Party's Rashed Khan Menon, JaSaD MP Hasanul Haque Inu and Jatiya Party MP Mujibul Haque Chunnu also harshly criticised the judges.
Menon said, "The two judges have violated the Constitution's Article 78. A Supreme Judicial Council can be formed against them and a motion condemning it can be adopted in Parliament."
However, Tapash told Parliament, "A vested quarter wants to lead Parliament and the judiciary to confrontation. We cannot fall for this trap. The court has given its observation over the Speaker's ruling. It cannot be called a verdict."
"This is an observation, there is no legal binding," he pointed out.
At this point, Speaker Abdul Hamid told him the court gave its verdict, not just observation.
"As the Speaker of this Parliament, I would like to say that this is not a case over land dispute or murder charges. This is a discussion about the Constitution. It cannot be sub-judice."
He said he would comment further on the issue later.
His remarks came during an unscheduled discussion on the first day of its 14th session of Parliament.
Suranjit said, "Parliament won't exist if the Speaker's ruling is not enforced, nor does this judiciary or these judges. Issuing a verdict against his [Speaker] ruling is not only provocative, but also conspiratorial."
Speaker Abdul Hamid issued a ruling in May saying High Court judge Justice AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury violated the Constitution by making 'derogatory comment' about Parliament.
Following the observation, the bench of Justices Hasan Foez Siddique and ABM Altaf Hossain on July 24 declared the Speaker's June 18 ruling was 'non-existent in the eye of law' and 'has no legal basis after a petition sought the court's intervention over the Speaker's ruling that Justice Choudhury violated the Constitution's Article 78 (1).
Speaker Hamid pointed out on Tuesday, "The judiciary is certainly independent, but Parliament is sovereign."
He said that the Constitution was the highest law of the country and Parliament was its custodian. Addressing the MPs, Hamid said, "Let there be no doubt, let no one say this is a subjudice matter. We can most certainly discuss it here."
Suranjit later dubbed the court's verdict ad 'irresponsible'. "There is no martial law in which justices did not collude."
Earlier, Awami League lawmakers Tofail Ahmed and Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim, speaking on a point of order after the question-answer session, set the House on fire.
Parliament became heated with the MPs demanding revival of Bangladesh's original constitution of 1972, which allowed Parliament to impeach judges.
A former Commerce Minister and a long time party stalwart, Tofail also questioned the qualifications of the judges of the bench.
He said, "Now the High Court judges are appointed on political grounds, and I don't think Justice Altaf Hossain has even completed the mandatory 10-year attachment with the High Court before being appointed to the bench."
"I strongly believe this verdict was not decided in the courtroom," Tofail added.
He said, "We appoint High Court judges on political grounds, and I don't think Justice Altaf Hossain has even completed the mandatory 10-year attachment with the High Court before being appointed to the bench."
He said the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs should keep an eye on these appointments.
Tofail ended with a proposal to revive Bangladesh's original constitution of 1972, which allowed Parliament to impeach judges.
Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal MP Mainuddin Khan Badal said the court's observation was 'obsolete, obscene and obnoxious'. "This is a rather ominous sign," he added.
Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim also spoke on the same issue before Tofail. "The justices have given a bizarre, eerie verdict. The justices have stepped beyond their line."
"An independent judiciary does not mean anyone can say anything according to their own wishes. Justices are not beyond law. The judiciary is independent, but not sovereign."
He also demanded formation of Supreme Judicial Council to 'impeach' the Supreme Court judges.
Addressing the Speaker, Tofail raised questions over the identity and qualification of Deputy Attorney General Biswajit Roy who argued at the hearing against the Speaker.
He also questioned Justice ABM Altaf Hossain's qualifications for being a judge.
The senior ruling Awami League MP claimed recently appointed Justice Zafar Ahmed, nephew of Justice AHM Shamsuddin Choudhury, did not complete the mandatory 10-year attachment with the High Court as an advocate.
Justice Zafar Ahmed was enlisted as a lawyer in High Court Division in 1995.
Awami League MPs Sayedul Haque, Sheikh Fazle Noor Tapash, Fazle Rabbi Mia, Worker's Party's Rashed Khan Menon, JaSaD MP Hasanul Haque Inu and Jatiya Party MP Mujibul Haque Chunnu also harshly criticised the judges.
Menon said, "The two judges have violated the Constitution's Article 78. A Supreme Judicial Council can be formed against them and a motion condemning it can be adopted in Parliament."
However, Tapash told Parliament, "A vested quarter wants to lead Parliament and the judiciary to confrontation. We cannot fall for this trap. The court has given its observation over the Speaker's ruling. It cannot be called a verdict."
"This is an observation, there is no legal binding," he pointed out.
At this point, Speaker Abdul Hamid told him the court gave its verdict, not just observation.
"As the Speaker of this Parliament, I would like to say that this is not a case over land dispute or murder charges. This is a discussion about the Constitution. It cannot be sub-judice."
He said he would comment further on the issue later.