104

CHAPTER 8
JUDICIARY AND BAR
8.1) Introduction:
The bar is an essential part of the justice system in any society. Members of the bar protect the
interests of their clients and at the same time help judges in the administration of justice. In
discharging these functions they also play a role in scrutinizing judges. This role of the bar is
recognized as an informal mechanism of public accountability of judges.

8.2) General Perspective on Role of the Bar:

This section examines issues of the scrutiny of judges by members of the bar in ensuring judicial
accountability. For convenience, the discussion is divided under three subheadings: relationship
between judges and the bar, rationale of the role of the bar in scrutinizing judges and ways of
scrutinizing judges.
8.2.1) Relationship between Judges and the Bar:
The administration of justice is fundamentally the responsibility of the judges but this
responsibility cannot be discharged properly without active participation of members of the bar.
Verma terms the administration of justice a joint venture in which members of the bar and
judges are equal participants. Although in ensuring the proper administration of justice the
obligations of judges are greater than the lawyers, all of them are accountable to the public. A
judges resolves legal disputes on the basis of three main factors: a finding of facts in dispute,
receiving evidence in support of the facts and determining the relevant laws. The lawyers
articulate the facts of the case, gather evidence in support of the claims of parties and put forth
the legal arguments before the judges. Thus members of the bar actively help judges in the
administration of justice. At the same time, they individually or collectively play an important
role in scrutinizing the conduct and performance of judges.

105
8.2.2) Rationale of the Role of the Bar in Scrutinizing Judges:
The bar has the capacity to explain the law and legal procedure to the public in and out of the
courts: in places and situations in which it may not be possible for judges. This role of the bar
may influence public understanding of the activities of judges and thus, it plays a crucial role in
interpreting the judicial activities to the public. Therefore, as an informal mechanism of
scrutinizing judges, the role of the bar is very important to ensure public accountability of
judges.
The rationale behind the power of the bar in scrutinising judges can be identified in two ways.
Firstiy, members of the bar possess legal knowledge and practical experience of trial processes.
They understand the law as interpreted and applied by the judges. Therefore, they can assess the
legal competence of judges. Secondly, members of the bar spend most of their working days in
court and encounter from time to time the common pattern of judicial misconduct and
incompetence. Consequently, the bar plays a very significant role in controlling the
shortcomings of the conduct and performance of judges. In other words members of the bar
directly and constantly watch legal competence and conduct of judges. This direct and constant
scrutinizing by the legal profession ensures judges are careful to administer justice according to
law.

8.3) Bangladesh Perspectives:

In Bangladesh, there is only one class of practicing lawyers known as advocates and they are
admitted to practice by the Bar Council of Bangladesh under the Bangladesh legal practitioners
and Bar Council Order 1972. In addition, he or she must have passed such examination as may
be prescribed by the Bar Council. No advocate is entitled to practice in any court without being a
member of the Bar Association of the place where he or she usually practices. There is a Bar
Association in every district and in the supreme court of Bangladesh. All Bar Association is
governed by a elected body by its members and required to be recognized by the Bar Council of
Bangladesh. This section examines the role of the bar in scrutinizing judges in Bangladesh. In
this respect there are two substantial issues, the criticism of judges and the boycott of a judge.

106
8.3.1) Criticism of judges:
The role of the Bar is recognized as an important informal mechanism of judicial accountability
in Bangladesh. Members of the Bar individually and collectively scrutinise the activities and
conduct of judges. The Canons of professional conduct and Etiquette 1969 framed by the
Bangladesh Bar Council provide:
Whenever there is proper ground for complaint against a judicial officer, it is the
right and duty of an advocate to ventilate such grievance and seek redress thereof
legally and to protect the complaint and persons affected.
In accordance with this right or duty of the advocates, they criticise any misconduct of judges.
The professional criticisms of the lawyers are very useful to make judges accountable for
exercising their judicial power, but the lawyers are not free to criticize unjustly.
In this regard, the Canons of professional Conduct and Etiquette 1969 for lawyers in Bangladesh
provide:
It is the duty of an Advocate to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude,
not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial officer, but for the
maintenance of its supreme importance. Judges not being wholly free to defend
themselves are peculiarly entitled to receive the support of the Bar against unjust
criticism and clamour.
This respect from the lawyers is essential to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.
Therefore, the criticism of judges by the lawyers though useful to ensure judicial accountability,
it is also a concern for the independence of judiciary.
8.3.2) Boycott of a judge:
In some cases, members of the bar boycott the court of judges for their misconduct or
misbehavior. In fact, court boycott of the subordinate judiciary is a common practice in
Bangladesh. In the case of any allegation made by a member or members of the bar against a
judge, the concerned Bar association meets to discuss the allegations and to decide whether to
boycott the judge. If the Association resolves to boycott the judge, it sends copies of the

107
resolution to the superior authority of the judge including the president, the Chief Justice, and the
Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs before taking action against the judge. In
addition, the Association informs the Bar Council of Bangladesh by sending a copy of the
resolution.

8.4) Conclusion:
In Bangladesh, the role of practicing lawyers ensures public accountability of judges, but
sometimes it may conflict with the ideal of judicial independence. In this regard, the law of
contempt of court is an important balancing instrument to ease the tension between the
independence and accountability of judges. However, the law of contempt of court in Bangladesh
is very old and adequate provisions are not provided by it. The law of contempt should be in
specific terms so that the lawyers can play an effective role in checking judges by upholding the
status and dignity of the judiciary. Another important factor is the mechanisms for dealing with
the concerns of the bar about the activities and conduct of judges. An independent judicial
commission, as recommended in the chapters before, should be established so that the concerns
of the bar may be considered in a systematic and transparent manner. It ultimately ensures public
accountability of judges and also strengthens judicial independence.