The recent apprehension of former Chief Justice ABM Khairul Haque from his residence in Dhanmondi on July 24 has sparked renewed discussions regarding his legacy, particularly his significant involvement in scrapping the non-partisan caretaker government system through the 13th Amendment ruling. While he is currently confronting murder allegations related to the tragic death of teenager Abdul Kaiyum Ahad during last year’s July unrest, the timing and nature of these legal actions prompt critical inquiries. Is this truly a pursuit of criminal justice, or is it a political settling of scores veiled in legal procedures?
Justice Khairul Haque held the position of Bangladesh’s 19th chief justice from September 2010 to May 2011, and later served as the chairman of Bangladesh Law Commission until his resignation in August 2024, after the downfall of the Awami League government. At 81 years old and reportedly in frail health, he is entangled in three distinct cases—two in Dhaka’s Jatrabari region and one in Narayanganj—entailing accusations of sedition and delivering a falsified verdict. These unfolding events are unprecedented, and while no judge should be immune to legal consequences, the manner and motives behind these legal proceedings warrant closer examination.
At the heart of the ongoing legal turmoil lies the 13th Amendment ruling issued by the Appellate Division in 2011, which invalidated the caretaker government system. Introduced in 1996 via the 13th Amendment to address widespread political mistrust and ensure fair elections, the caretaker government system initially proved effective. The elections in 1996 and 2001, both conducted under caretaker administrations, were widely regarded as credible and peaceful.
Nonetheless, the crisis during 2006-07, when the caretaker government extended its tenure and governed under emergency powers, tarnished the system’s reputation. This paved the way for challenges to its constitutionality, culminating in the Appellate Division’s verdict in 2011. The leading judgment, authored by Chief Justice Khairul Haque, contended that the caretaker government system breached the fundamental structure of the constitution by allowing unelected individuals to wield sovereign executive authority.
Controversy not only surrounds the content of the verdict but also its procedural aspects. The final decision was divided 4:3, with Justice Khairul Haque supported by justices Md Muzammel Hossain, SK Sinha, and Syed Mahmud Hossain, who later ascended to chief justice roles. Conversely, the three dissenting judges—justices Muhammad Imman Ali, Md Abdul Wahhab Miah, and Nazmun Ara Sultana—did not reach the top judicial post. Whether this pattern is coincidental or consequential remains subject to interpretation.
The discrepancy between the court’s short order on May 10, 2011—days before Khairul Haque’s retirement—and the full verdict unveiled over a year later in September 2012 is particularly noteworthy. The short order permitted the 10th and 11th parliamentary elections under the caretaker system, citing legal doctrines of necessity and state security. It suggested amendments to exclude former chief justices or Appellate Division judges from leading the caretaker government but did not annul the system outright.
However, the comprehensive judgment introduced new directives, notably proposing future elections under an interim government comprising elected parliamentarians, with the existing cabinet overseeing daily governance. These alterations, absent in the initial short order, were disputed by Justice Md Abdul Wahhab Miah in his dissent, deeming them inconsistent with the preliminary ruling. These additions facilitated consecutive elections under the Awami League’s authority, criticized for irregularities and lacking credibility.
These circumstances raise significant constitutional and political concerns. Was the 15th Amendment, which eliminated the caretaker government system in June 2011, genuinely aligned with the 13th Amendment ruling, or was the ruling retroactively modified to validate the amendment? The timeline raises suspicions: the short order, effective during the 15th Amendment’s enactment, advocated for the next two elections under the caretaker system without proposing its outright abolition. The complete judgment, incorporating this change, was issued post the legislative alteration.
If this was a post-hoc judicial endorsement, it would signify not only a procedural lapse but a deliberate distortion of constitutional principles—a severe miscarriage of justice. Khairul Haque’s involvement cannot be viewed in isolation; he was not acting alone. Three other justices concurred with him, yet they do not face legal or political repercussions today. The rationale behind singling him out at this moment warrants scrutiny.
The accusations against Justice Haque, particularly the murder charge, necessitate careful assessment. Is it plausible that an 81-year-old former chief justice orchestrated a violent crime? Do the facts substantiate this claim, or is it a veiled act of reprisal? Despite any flaws in his judgment, safeguards for