Such a judgment has been termed as unprecedented in the history of Bangladesh's judicial journey by eminent jurists of the country. To be specific and non-partisan on this point, the views of former CJ Mostafa Kamal, Justice (retired) Golam Rabbani, and eminent lawyer Dr M Johir could be counted. They hold that in their almost three decades of practices in courts, they have never come across such postponement of judgment by a CJ. Critics also contend that the CJ has been politically pushed to be partisan. We shall not argue, as some quarters have, that the two year extension of his tenure made all the difference since, true or false, such a view would amount to an aspersion on the chair of the CJ.

The CJ is believed to be the torch-bearer of justice, and the last pillar to lean on during any constitutional crisis. As a central bank is the lender in the last resort, so is the CJ the last hope for justice. Nevertheless, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that the last resort of the people's prayer for justice has been muddled and maligned, advertently or inadvertently, by the very recent immature initiatives of the CJ.

We shall, in this column, try to read the whole story of the "court-conspiracy" from a common citizen's corner. First, we fail to understand why and how an attorney general (AG) appointed by the previous political government continues to serve a caretaker government that claims to be neutral. We think that the very first attack on the neutral character of the present caretaker government came, inter alia, from the continuation of appointment of a political person as AG. Of course the dignity and honesty of the AG should have led him to resign the moment the caretaker government took oath of office. However, that kind of decency is a scarce commodity in the country. Second, we also noticed with grave concern that the whole show was performed by the barristers-turned ministers of the previous government.

It was as if the previous government of Begum Khaleda Zia was engaged in a legal battle. The impression was clearly brought to picture in the press conference by Barrister Moudud Ahmed, et al, on behalf of the AG. In other words, the government led by Begum Khaleda Zia and Professor Iazuddin sadly appear to be synonymous. Third, if the hearing of such a sensitive issue should be held by a greater bench -- as has been the argument -- then the moot question is why was the HC bench allowed to continue the deliberations for three days, keeping the whole nation anxious?

And along with that is it the fact that a rule nisi on the caretaker chief, or president, was in the offing. Was the bench banned to negate that? Fourth, instead of following the normal rules of procedure in such cases, how could the AG hand over the papers of postponement to the bench? And finally, suppose the bench had issued a rule nisi asking for a clarification of the position of the president about his assumption of the post of caretaker chief? Wouldn't it be legal and ethical to wait for a reply, or to appeal to the appellate division for a hearing?

However, the good thing is that people in general have already grasped the gravity of the situation. It is that the assumption of the position of the caretaker chief by the president has not been legal. Otherwise, why should there be a hurried move to arrange a stay order on the judgment? Common citizens like us barely understand the legal dynamics. What we simply understand is that there was something which hit the supporters of the erstwhile government below the belt: the illegal possession of the chair of the caretaker chief by the president himself.

Just that move by the CJ caused havoc in the court premises. Disconcertingly, rampant vandalism swept through the court premises. In the past, we had heard about lawyers kicking at the doors of the CJ's room, or how political parties had marched against judgments. In fact, there should be very little disagreement on the fact that such vandalism should be condemned. We, therefore, strongly condemn such heinous attempts at the highest citadel of justice. But more so, we equally hate any act which invites such atrocities, or provokes people to take the law in their own hands. One should look seriously before one leaps -- be it as chief justice or as chief of the caretaker government.

In this connection, we would also like to talk on the activities of the caretaker government (CTG) for the last 35 days. The recent happenings in the court building have a direct connection with the behaviour of the CTG. It is unfortunate that, unlike the previous CTGs, the present CTG has become pitifully partisan. There are many points to back that premise, but allow us to submit only three.

First, two additional commissioners with strong allegiance to a particular political party were appointed to the EC. In fact, one of them sought nomination from BNP, and the other allegedly campaigned for a BNP candidate. Second, while the previous CTG overhauled the administrative echelon within 24 hours through transfers, postings etc., the present CTG seems to be clinging to the administrative arrangements of the previous government. And third, according to NDI, about 13 per cent of the voters -- that is 1.33 crores voters -- are fake or overlapped voters. Without correction of the voter list any drive for a fair election would be doomed to fail.

We presume that the 14-party alliance went to the court for justice, after having failed to arrest the favour the CTG was planning to provide to a particular party. Quite logically, had there been a neutral person as the chief of CTG, much of the rot could have been stemmed.

If the CTG means to man a neutral, free, and fair election, then the chief of the CTG must rise above political bias. Still there is scope to heal the wounds inflicted by the partisan roles pursued so far. In the absence of that we only foresee a fire, and a credible election will be a forlorn hope. Let the CTG act as fire brigade not as fire-lighter.

Abdul Bayes is a Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University.