When a judge's appointment is confirmed, he/she cannot be removed unless the person voluntarily resigns or a supreme judicial council removes him or her. The 41 confirmations made during the immediate past BNP-led four party alliance government have been largely tainted by allegations of partisanship and favouritism. The antecedents of the judges range from some of them having been active leaders of BNP at some stage through one being a BNP lawmaker in the sixth parliament to one judge against whom 'there are specific allegations of corruption'. The extension of the retirement age of the judges has had the effect of extending the tenure of the controversial judges.

The appointment of judges on the basis of political affiliation rather than merit, the practice of ignoring the chief justice's recommendations in the confirmation process and that of elevating High Court judges by superseding senior judges were relentlessly protested by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The civil society and the media also expressed their grave concern over similar trends but to no avail. All of this fell on deaf ears of the erstwhile government.

We would, therefore, endorse the idea now of an early reform of the judiciary by formation of a supreme judicial council. We can cite one instance of judicial council having been formed under pressure by the alliance government to remove Judge Syed Shahidur Rahman, its appointee, on grounds of receiving bribe. The caretaker government has formed a judicial council after Chittagong University had formerly cancelled Justice Faizee's LLB certificate. The precedent is worth following.