A competent Supreme Court source said yesterday that the government is now collecting background information about all controversial judges who were appointed or whose services were confirmed between 2001 and 2006.

"We believe that the move is an indication that the government is planning to do something to clean the judiciary and to restore its independence," he said.

Chief Justice Mohammad Ruhul Amin told a gathering of lawyers on Sunday in Noakhali that the damage done to the judiciary in the recent years will take more than 20 years to remedy.

The Supreme Court source added that the chief justice's remark will help the authorities to concede to the widespread demand for freeing the judiciary from partisanship through reforms.

Senior lawyers of the Supreme Court yesterday welcomed the statement of the chief justice. But they said instead of waiting 20 years to cleanse the higher judiciary, the authorities could form a supreme judicial council or find other means to start reforming it immediately.

According to Supreme Court sources, there are 68 confirmed judges in the High Court Division and seven in the Appellate Division including the chief justice.

Out of the 68, the appointments of 41 were confirmed during the regime of the immediate past BNP-led four-party alliance government which had appointed 45 additional high court judges during its regime. After the authorities appoint an additional judge and the person serves for two years, the chief justice makes a recommendation for confirming her or his appointment based on performance. As a norm, the government always accepts the chief justice's recommendations.

When a judge's appointment is confirmed, he or she cannot be removed unless the person voluntarily resigns or a supreme judicial council removes the person. And that is why the chief justice said it will take 20 years to cleanse the judiciary.

There have been allegations of partisanship and nepotism in relation to most of the 41 confirmations. There are also allegations that some of these judges had been active leaders of BNP. One additional judge used to be a BNP lawmaker in the sixth parliament and there is at least one judge against whom there are specific allegations of corruption.

The alliance government made these appointments in four instalments. In addition, the alliance government also extended the retirement age for the judges allegedly to place a candidate of its choice as the chief of the caretaker government before the ninth parliamentary election. The move in turn also extended the tenure of the controversial judges.

In the last instalment of appointments in August 2004, there were a daughter and nephews of some BNP lawmakers, while another had been a leader of Islami Chhatra Shibir.

Before ending its term in October 2006, the alliance government confirmed the appointments of the judges it had appointed including that of Faisal Mahmud Faizee, whose confirmation had not been recommended by the chief justice.

In the last five years, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) constantly protested against appointments of judges on the basis of their political affiliations instead of their merit, the practice of ignoring the chief justice's recommendations in the confirmation process, and the practice of elevating the High Court judges to the Appellate Division by superceding senior judges.

The SCBA was also vocal about the appointments of judges against whom there are specific allegations of corruption. Under overwhelming evidence and pressure, the alliance government through a supreme judicial council for the first time had to remove Judge Syed Shahidur Rahman on grounds of receiving bribes, whom the same government had appointed.

The SCBA's serious agitations demanding the removal of another judge -- Faisal Mahmud Faizee -- for tampering with his LLB certificate from Chittagong University was however sternly fought back by the alliance government since 2005. The agitation took a serious turn tarnishing the higher judiciary's image. Now, under the new caretaker government, the authorities formed another supreme judicial council after Chittagong University had formally cancelled Faizee's LLB certificate.

Chief Adviser to the military backed Caretaker Government Fakhruddin Ahmed earlier said the judicial department will have to be independent and neutral.

"We want the image of the judiciary to be held high, and the rule of law and justice established on a firm foundation," he said about his government's intentions.

The SCBA also protested between 2002 and 2003, when the alliance government chose not to confirm the appointments of the majority of additional judges who had been given the appointments at the very end of the Awami League regime in 2001, and for whom the chief justice had made favourable recommendations.

When such protests were raging, erstwhile law minister Barrister Moudud Ahmed told BBC in February 2003 that the government's actions had been taken in line with the constitution and the laws of the land. The constitution does not oblige the government to comply with the chief justice's recommendations. Moudud's remarks enraged the judiciary, but he held his ground till the last confirmations were made in 2006 ignoring all opposing opinions.

Retired Supreme Court judge Ghulam Rabbani told The Daily Star yesterday, "Between 1992 and 2002, there had not been any controversy or grievance over the appointments of the judges. The judges were also very capable."

"When the chief justice himself has noted that there is a problem within the judiciary this means he is telling the truth based on his own experience. Now the duty of the chief justice is to request the president to form a supreme judicial council to clear up the mess," Rabbani noted.

On May 20, 2002 the High Court Division bench gave its observation that the Supreme Court recommendations on appointments must be made effective and meaningful. In the selection of judges, backgrounds of nominees must be checked and cross-checked as a precautionary measure, and the executive branch should keep the appointments above politics.

Former SCBA president and Bangladesh Bar Council Vice-chairman Barrister Rokanuddin Mahmud welcomed the chief justice's comment saying that his comment echoed what the SCBA has been saying for the last few years.

"Why these burdens [incompetent and controversial judges] should be carried for 20 more years? They should be removed through a supreme judicial council," Mahmud added.

Eminent lawyer Dr M Zahir said, "What the chief justice said I don't know for sure. But if there is a problem in the process of appointments of judges we should resolve that together."

Pro-BNP lawyers' leader TH Khan said, "There are elements of truth in the statement of the chief justice. If there are incompetent and corrupt persons who were appointed as judges, it's the responsibility of the chief justice to remove them."

BNP Law Secretary Advocate Zainul Abedin said politicisation of the judiciary started from the autocratic regime of Ershad and continued throughout the Awami League and BNP regimes. "Those who have been appointed should now try to prove their competence through their performances and sever their political affiliations," he added.

Former secretary of SCBA Enayetur Rahim said, "After the chief justice's comment, the government should not wait 20 years and instead it should look for ways to restore the lost image of the judiciary."