The High Court today stayed a government circular that allegedly reduced security arrangements for Supreme Court judges, the attorney general and other officials associated with the judiciary.
The court also directed the government to provide them with their existing security arrangements as usual.
HC bench of Justice JBM Hassan and Justice Aziz Ahmed Bhuiyan passed the order and issued a rule following a writ petition challenging the legality of the circular.
The court asked the authorities concerned to explain why the circular reducing security arrangements for Supreme Court judges, the attorney general and other officials associated with the judiciary should not be declared illegal.
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Mohammad Shishir Manir and Advocate Mohammad Saddam Hossen appeared for the petitioners, while Deputy Attorney General Nur Mohammad Azami represented the state.
Yesterday, Advocate Shishir Manir filed the petition on behalf of 10 petitioners, naming the senior secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs as the respondent.
The petitioners sought cancellation of the circular issued on August 27 this year, arguing that it was inconsistent with the existing Warrant of Precedence and the Appellate Division's judgment in the case of Bangladesh vs Ataur Rahman and others.
They also sought an immediate stay on the operation of the circular, a declaration that it had been issued without lawful authority and had no legal effect, and restoration of the previous security arrangements.
The petitioners are lawyers Mohammad Saddam Hossen, Abdullah Sadiq, Mizanul Haque, Jaiad Bin Amjad, Mohammad Shaneowaz, Sabbir Rahman and Mahmudul Hasan, along with Dhaka University law student Shamim Shahidi, Md Rafiul Sabbir and Habibur Rahman Al Hasan.
Writ petitioner Advocate Saddam Hossen told The Daily Star that certain security privileges previously provided to High Court judges and the attorney general had been withdrawn under the August 27 circular.
Traditionally, when they travel outside Dhaka, they are provided with police escorts or security protocols, while house guards are also deployed at their residences in Dhaka, he said. The new circular removed these arrangements, he added.
At the same time, several officials who rank lower in the Warrant of Precedence, including divisional commissioners, deputy inspector generals (DIGs), metropolitan police commissioners and the secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, have been provided with house guards and police escort facilities, Saddam said.
“We believe this creates a clear inconsistency with the Warrant of Precedence, as security arrangements for senior-ranking officials have effectively been reduced while similar or enhanced facilities have been extended to officials who rank below them,” he said.
Saddam said a similar circular had been issued on March 2, 2025. The High Court, in a suo motu rule issued on March 6 that year, stayed its operation and directed the authorities to ensure security for Supreme Court judges, the attorney general, additional attorneys general and officials concerned with the judiciary.
The government subsequently cancelled that circular on March 9, 2025, he said.
The petitioners contended that issuing the latest circular despite the earlier court directions undermines the security and dignity of the judiciary.
The writ petitioner further argued that the circular violates judicial independence, the separation of powers and the basic structure of the Constitution of Bangladesh.
