The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has upheld the High Court's decision to grant bail to former Superintendent of Police Babul Akter, in the case over the murder of his wife, Mahmuda Khanam Mitu. Chamber Judge Justice Md Rezaul Haque passed a “no order” decision on the petition to stay the High Court’s bail order. This ruling removes any obstacle to Babul Akter’s release, said his lawyer Advocate Mohammad Shishir Monir. Mitu murder: Ex- SP Babul Akter gets bail, no bar to walk out from jail Earlier, on October 30, the High Court granted bail to Babul Akter. Following this, Mitu’s father, Mosharraf Hossain, filed a petition in the Appellate Division Chamber Court to stay the bail. Shishir represented Babul, while Additional Attorney General Barrister Aneek R Haque represented the state. Advocate Mahbubur Rahman appeared for Mitu’s father. “The chamber court has given a ‘no order’. With the bail being upheld, we hope Babul Akter will be released today. His bail bond has already been submitted,” said Shishir. Mitu was murdered on June 5, 2016 on her way to drop off her son at school in the GEC area of Chattogram city. The following day, Babul Akter filed a murder case as the complainant at the Panchlaish Police Station. Mitu murder: Babul Akter’s bail hearing on August 18 Later, the Police Bureau of Investigation (PBI) found evidence linking Babul to the crime. This led Mitu’s father to file another case, naming Babul as an accused. On May 12, 2021, PBI arrested Babul. On September 13, 2022, PBI submitted a charge sheet to the court, naming Babul and six others as accused. The court accepted the charge sheet on October 10. After failing to secure bail in the lower court, Babul applied to the High Court earlier this year. On November 27, the High Court granted him interim bail through a rule. Mosharraf Hossain, the plaintiff and Mitu’s father, later filed a petition to stay this order, which the Supreme Court reviewed on Wednesday and upheld the High Court’s bail decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday in a pivotal case challenging a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming care for minors. The outcome of this case could influence similar legislation in 25 other states and shape broader policies affecting transgender individuals, including sports participation and access to facilities. The court, now dominated by conservative justices, is addressing its second major transgender rights case, following its 2020 decision in favor of Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman fired by her employer. In that case, the justices ruled that federal laws against sex discrimination protect transgender individuals. The Core Debate: Equal Protection and Sex Discrimination At the heart of the Tennessee case is whether the state’s law violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which requires the government to treat similar groups equally. The law bans puberty blockers and hormone treatments specifically for transgender minors, while allowing these treatments for other medical purposes. Chase Strangio of the American Civil Liberties Union, the lead attorney representing the families challenging the law, argued that targeting transgender minors for these bans constitutes sex discrimination. The Biden administration also supports this view, with Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar emphasizing that such restrictions cannot be enforced without considering a person’s sex. “That is sex discrimination,” Prelogar wrote, urging the court to use its 2020 analysis, which recognized that “sex plays an unmistakable role” in discriminatory practices. Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti defended the law, arguing it is not about discrimination but about protecting minors from irreversible medical interventions. He asserted that the law distinguishes between minors seeking treatment for gender transition and those seeking similar medications for other medical reasons. Scrutiny Levels: A Legal Battleground A key legal debate centers on the level of scrutiny the court should apply. The state wants the law evaluated under “rational basis review,” a lenient standard that often upholds legislation. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati sided with Tennessee, stating the law fell within lawmakers’ authority to regulate medical practices. Read: Bangladesh's transgender community ready to shatter boundaries with education However, the challengers argue for “heightened scrutiny,” which applies in sex discrimination cases. This standard requires the state to demonstrate that its law addresses a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. A decision to apply heightened scrutiny could lead to the case being sent back to the appeals court. Broader Implications for Transgender Rights The case arrives amid an intensifying national debate over transgender rights. Former President Donald Trump and his allies have campaigned to restrict transgender protections, while states have passed laws regulating gender-affirming care, participation in sports, and access to bathrooms. The medical community overwhelmingly supports gender-affirming care for youth, with organizations like the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics advocating for these treatments. However, Tennessee and its allies point to studies from European countries like Sweden and Finland that highlight potential risks and call for cautious use of such interventions. Personal Stakes for Families The Williams family of Nashville, one of the challengers, described how the ban has affected their transgender daughter, L.W. Her father, Brian Williams, shared that puberty blockers and hormone treatments have allowed her to thrive and plan for her future. Yet, due to the state’s law, she must travel out of state for care. “This ban forces us to fight harder for our child’s well-being,” Williams said. Read: DU admission test: Students demand cancellation of  transgender quota As the justices deliberate, their decision could significantly shape the legal landscape for transgender rights in the U.S., marking a crucial moment for families, healthcare providers, and advocates on both sides of the issue. Source: With inputs from agencies

The Supreme Court (SC) has sent a proposal to the Law Ministry over the formation of Judicial Appointments Council to appoint judges for the higher court of the country. The proposal was sent to the ministry after conducting a detailed study on the laws, rules and regulations, customs and other related matters over the appointment of higher court judges in different countries, said a media release sent by the SC. The SC proposed the formation of the council headed by the Chief Justice which will make recommendations after receiving a request from the President to recommend suitable persons for appointment as judge of the Supreme Court. In many countries especially in the western ones there are independent and impartial commissions or similar institutions for the appointment of judges of the HC. The council has proposed issuance a public notice inviting applications from the candidates for sending recommendations for the appointment of judges under Articles 95 and 98 of the Constitution on the basis of a request by the President. Read: Ctg lawyers demand CMP commissioner's resignation over Adv Alif’s murder Besides, the council can call any person concerned to the council meeting to seek opinions or suggestions about candidates or can instruct any government and private organisation to provide information demanded by the council. Once the council is formed, transparency and accountability will be ensured in the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, said the release.

The Office of the Chief Justice of Bangladesh has expressed deep concern over the unprecedented incidents that unfolded on the Supreme Court premises on Wednesday, as well as other recent events within judicial premises nationwide. In a statement on Thursday, the Chief Justice’s Office reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining the smooth operation of the justice delivery system across the country. All developments are being closely monitored to ensure that the judicial processes remain undisturbed despite the challenges, it added. BNP leader Zainul Abedin Farroque acquitted in wealth statement case To prevent a recurrence of such incidents, the Office of the Chief Justice has implemented comprehensive measures within the Supreme Court, as well as in district judgeships and magistracies. The chief justice has also issued clear directives for all courts and tribunals to continue their functions normally, emphasising the judiciary’s crucial role in serving the nation’s greater interest.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has granted a petition to restore the appeal made against the verdict that declared the registration of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami illegal. The Appellate Division, led by Chief Justice Dr Syed Refaat Ahmed and consisting of four judges, issued this order on Tuesday. Barrister Ehsan Abdullah Siddique and Advocate Mohammad Shishir Monir represented Jamaat in the court. As a result of today's order, the appeal against the verdict that declared Jamaat-e-Islami's registration illegal will again be heard in the highest court. After the order, lawyer Shishir Monir told journalists, “The Appellate Division had earlier dismissed the appeal during the hearing regarding the cancellation of Jamaat's registration because no lawyer was present on behalf of the party. “However, as constitutional questions were involved in the case, the High Court had referred it directly to the Appellate Division. The petition was made to restore the appeal as its dismissal without a hearing was deemed inappropriate. Along with this, there was also a petition for delayed forgiveness. The Appellate Division granted our petition. Now, the appeal regarding the cancellation of Jamaat's registration will be heard again.” After resolving a writ petition, the High Court issued a verdict on August 1, 2013, cancelling and declaring the registration of Jamaat-e-Islami illegal. Subsequently, on December 7, 2018, the Election Commission (EC) issued a notification cancelling the registration of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. Later, Jamaat appealed against the High Court's verdict. However, since Jamaat's main lawyer was absent during the appeal hearing against the High Court's verdict, the Appellate Division, led by the then-Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan, issued a dismissal order on November 19 last year. Consequently, the High Court's verdict declaring the registration of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami illegal remained upheld. Nevertheless, the appeal that had been dismissed was restored for hearing after the fall of the Awami League government. On September 2, the chamber court set the petition for hearing in the full bench of the Appellate Division on October 21. However, on October 22, the matter came up in the hearing schedule of the Division. Will serve, not rule people if given opportunity: Jamaat Ameer Meanwhile, during the ongoing anti-discrimination movement, on August 1, the then Awami League government declared a ban on Jamaat-e-Islami and Islami Chhatra Shibir. The Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notification banning Jamaat, Chhatra Shibir, and their other affiliated organisations under section 18(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act. However, on August 28, the decision to ban Jamaat and Shibir was revoked through a notification.

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that judges can be removed through the Supreme Judicial Council. In a landmark ruling today, the six-member Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, upheld its earlier decision that declared the 16th Amendment to the Constitution invalid. This ruling solidifies the authority of the Supreme Judicial Council in investigating allegations of incapacity or professional misconduct against judges. Attorney General Md. Asaduzzaman represented the state in the court during the hearing. Advocate Manzil Murshed stood for the petitioner in the court. Read: 12 High Court judges being sent on leave  The 16th Amendment, passed by the Awami League government in 2014, sought to transfer the power of removing judges from the Supreme Judicial Council to the National Parliament. However, the amendment's legality was challenged in the High Court. In a ruling on May 5, 2016, a special bench declared the amendment unconstitutional by majority decision. The government appealed against this ruling in January 2017, but on July 3 of the same year, the full Appellate Division bench, led by then-Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, unanimously rejected the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to annul the 16th Amendment. The government filed a petition on December 24, 2017, seeking a review of the Appellate Division's verdict on the 16th Amendment. As a result of Sunday’s ruling, the judiciary retains its independence, ensuring that the investigation and removal of judges will remain a judicial matter rather than a political one.

Six High Court judges, accused of collaborating with the ousted Hasina government, have been sent on leave. Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed personally informed the judges of this decision during a meeting today. In a series of meetings, the judges entered the Chief Justice's office, and it was confirmed that six of them attended an invitation extended by Justice Ahmed. Those present included Justices S.M. Moniruzzaman, Khondkar Diliruzzaman, Md. Akteruzzaman, Shahed Md. Nuruddin, S.M. Masud Hossain Dolon, and Md. Aminul Islam. The Chief Justice informed these judges that they would be placed on leave. Student movement to lay siege to High Court on Wed While six other judges did not attend the meeting, sources confirmed they will also be placed on leave, regardless of their presence. Several Supreme Court judges verified this development on Wednesday afternoon. When asked for comment, Supreme Court Registrar General Aziz Ahmed Bhuiyan said, “I have no information.” The invitation to the 12 High Court judges came after allegations surfaced that they acted as accomplices to the former Awami League-led government. The meeting, organized at the Chief Justice’s request, altered the day’s previous agenda. Sources indicate that the judges face numerous allegations of corruption and misconduct linked to their ties with the former administration. Various organizations have long demanded the removal of judges perceived to have political bias, particularly those appointed during the Awami League's tenure. General lawyers have echoed these demands, calling for the resignation of the judges. Tensions escalated earlier today when thousands of students from the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement gathered outside the High Court, demanding the resignation of what they called “fascist” judges linked to the Awami League. By 12:30 pm, the protest had drawn large crowds, with demonstrators chanting and creating a charged atmosphere. The protest march started at Dhaka University’s Raju sculpture and culminated at the High Court. The student protesters issued a 2 pm ultimatum, demanding the resignation of the "politically affiliated and corrupt" judges. In a related development, BNP-supporting lawyers held a separate rally at the Supreme Court, also calling for the resignation of the accused judges.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has denied bail to the suspended Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Prisons Bazlur Rashid in connection with a corruption case. A five-member bench of the Appellate Division headed by Justice Burhanuddin passed the order on Monday. Suspended DIG Bazlur Rashid granted HC bail Advocate Khurshid Alam stood for the Anti-Corruption Committee (ACC) while advocate SM Rezaul Karim moved for the petitioner. Earlier, Dhaka Special Judge Court-5 on 23 October 2022, had sentenced him to five years imprisonment and fined Tk5,00,000 in the case filed for amassing assets worth Tk3.14 crore. Suspended DIG Bazlur Rashid gets five-year jail in graft case   Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Deputy Director Md Salauddin filed the case against him on Oct 20, 2019. Later, he was arrested the same day. Why ex-DIG prison Bazlur Rashid’s bail won’t be scrapped: HC   On August 26, 2020,  ACC Deputy Director Nasir Uddin filed the charge sheet against Bazlur Rashid.

The Chamber Judge of the Appellate Division in the Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday stayed a High Court (HC) verdict that sentenced five top officials  of the Agrani Bank including its Managing Director Murshedul Kabir to three months' imprisonment for disobeying a lower court order earlier. Justice M Enayetur Rahim passed the order after hearing a petition in this regard. Attorney General AM Amin Uddin stood for Agrani Bank in the court while counsels Md. Akhtaruzzaman, Momtaz Uddin Fakir, Shamim Khaled and Barrister Tanjibul Alam represented the bank officials. Rape case in Uttara: Main suspect, associate arrested The defendants’ lawyers said the HC verdict will remain suspended until March 18 following Thursday’s verdict. As a result, the officials will not have to surrender before the trial court within this period and police will not have jurisdiction to arrest them, they said. On January 23 this year, the HC sentenced the five officials to three months' imprisonment for defying a court order by including Moon Group's name in the list of Credit Information Bureau (CIB) of Bangladesh Bank (BB). The four other officials are its principal branch’s General Manager Md Fazlul Karim, on post-retirement leave (LPR) General Manager AKM Fazlul Haque, Deputy Manager-2 Shyamal Krishna Saha and Deputy Managing Director-1 Wahida Begum. Advocate Nurul Amin who stood for the Moon Group said the HC sentenced the officials for contempt of court and ordered to confiscate their properties while details will be known when the full verdict is published. 634 people arrested for robbery in 2023: RAB Later, a petition was submitted with the Chamber Judge Court on Wednesday against the HC verdict. It was learned that on September 20, 2021, the principal branch of the bank sent a letter to the Moon Group to pay 25 percent of its dues in installments. The letter reads if the group does not refund 25 percent of the loan by September 30, 2021, it will be listed as a defaulter and sent to the BB’s CIB. Challenging the legality of the bank's letter, a decree was sought in the lower court. At the same time, a temporary ban was sought against the bank's letter on behalf of the group. Being rejected by the lower court, the group submitted a miscellaneous appeal with the HC against this order while the HC issued status quo on the bank's letter and a rule as well. Meanwhile, the bank sent the group to the BB’s CIB listing it as a defaulter for not paying 25 percent installments of the loan within the stipulated time. Man gets life term for raping young girl in Natore Later, the group submitted a violation case against the five with the HC in this regard. After hearing the case, the court sentenced five officials to three months' civil imprisonment. According to the case statement, the group owed Tk 539 crore to Agrani Bank till 2017.

The government has said that Bangladesh’s democratic polity has reached a stage where smooth and peaceful transition of power between elected governments has been ensured without any undemocratic arrangement. "Democracies have weaknesses, but they attain maturity only through practicing democracy," the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a briefing note shared with diplomats stationed in Dhaka on Tuesday. Although many leaders and activists of BNP were keen to participate, it is regrettable that its top leadership decided otherwise on the pretext of their unconstitutional demand for the provision of a caretaker government, the ministry conveyed to diplomats. In 2011, Supreme Court of Bangladesh declared the unelected caretaker provision "ultra vires" (any deed performed beyond the scope of legal authority) and void as it conflicts with the spirit of democracy. Read more: Australia urges Bangladesh govt to prioritise strengthening its democratic institutions The Election Commission repeatedly called upon BNP to participate, and the EC was even willing to revise the election schedule if BNP joined. BNP made this "irrational demand" as its principal political capital and chose to destroy the lives and properties of people, holding them hostage, said the government. The state of horrific violence that BNP and its allies unleashed throughout the country is only a vivid reminder of their drills in 2001, 2013, 2014 and 2018, the ministry of foreign affairs said. Since October 28, 2023, they set ablaze nearly a thousand public and private vehicles and over 200 establishments including police hospital premises and ambulances, vandalized nearly a thousand vehicles and many establishments including the residences of Chief Justice and other judges, caused injury to around 1,500 police personnel and around 500 civilians, attacked reporters and camera personnel, killed 24 individuals including two police personnel – one of them mercilessly beaten to death in broad daylight, the foreign ministry observed. "They sabotaged our railway system, leading to tragic incidents claiming five precious lives including burning a mother and her 3-year-old son alive and leaving many others severely injured," reads the briefing note. In the lead-up to the election, BNP "geared up its violence" in its efforts to spread fear and terror. On the preceding day of the elections, they carried out arson attacks on polling centres with a view to intimidating the voters, the ministry conveyed to the diplomats. Read more: Foreign friends continue to send congratulations to PM Hasina on her election win BNP called for a 48-hour nationwide strike to cut off the communication system and obstruct voters from traveling to their constituencies to cast their votes, it said. The Benapole Express train was set on fire, killing four passengers, causing severe injuries to many, and burning the passenger train to ashes, it said. The 12th Parliamentary Election of Bangladesh were held on January 7 in a "free, fair, impartial and transparent" manner with spontaneous participation of the voters. The people of Bangladesh as well as the international community have witnessed that the Bangladesh Election Commission, an independent and empowered constitutional body, supported by the incumbent government, can effectively conduct free, fair and credible elections, the ministry said. The 2024 polls have set a new milestone in the history of the journey of parliamentary democracy in Bangladesh, it said. People of Bangladesh have demonstrated their unyielding resolve to a rule-based democratic system and peace, progress and stability through their active participation, the foreign ministry said. "The incumbent government also manifested its unprecedented political commitment to take forward the democratic process, uphold the constitutional mandate, and ensure people’s right to vote." Despite the calls to boycott, violence and persistent intimidation by the BNP, the people of Bangladesh reinforced their commitment to and aspiration for a peaceful and ‘Smart Bangladesh’ vision, said the government. "This is a new paradigm in Bangladesh’s electoral history within the constitutional framework, based on trust, credibility, and impartiality in the election process in line with people’s aspirations," it said. The Indian High Commission's representative, British High Commissioner to Bangladesh Sarah Cooke, US Ambassador to Bangladesh Peter Haas, European Union Ambassador to Bangladesh Charles Whiteley, Chinese Ambassador to Bangladesh Yao Wen, Russian Ambassador to Bangladesh Alexander Mantytsky, UN Resident Coordinator in Dhaka Gwyn Lewis, and high commissioners and ambassadors from various other countries were present at the "meet and greet" where Foreign Minister Dr AK Abdul Momen spoke briefly. Foreign Secretary Masud Bin Momen was also present. Read more: Canada disappointed that Bangladesh’s electoral process has ‘fallen short of’ democratic principles