Former judge and petitioner of the landmark Masdar Hossain case, Masdar Hossain, has voiced deep frustration over the lack of meaningful progress in judicial reforms over the past 18 months, alleging that the judiciary is still unable to function independently and remains influenced by a culture of “directive-based” verdicts and orders.
Speaking at the regular talk show “Kathopokothon,” organized by Manchitra, in a conversation with journalist Manjurul Alam Panna, Hossain—who also serves as a member of the Judicial Reform Commission—shared his concerns about what he described as a failure to establish a truly independent judicial environment.
Allegations of Unwritten Directives on Bail
Hossain alleged that the country’s top law officers had gone to the High Court and openly pressured judges not to grant bail to certain individuals.
He claimed that lower court judges had privately expressed fear of transfer if they granted bail in sensitive cases. “Some judges told me, ‘Sir, if I grant bail today, I will receive a transfer order tomorrow,’” he said, adding that it appeared as though an “unwritten directive” had been imposed on the judiciary.
According to him, judges still lack the institutional courage and supportive environment necessary to deliver justice independently. “The judiciary continues to operate under the same old directive-driven practices,” he remarked.
Questions Over High Court Appointments
Hossain also raised concerns about the recent appointment of 23 High Court judges during the tenure of the interim government led by Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus.
He questioned whether merit, competence, and integrity were given due priority in the selection process, alleging that the “pick and choose” culture seen under previous political governments persists.
“There was no transparent policy or clear set of criteria in appointing these 23 judges,” he said, adding that the legal community has raised serious concerns regarding the appointments.
Criticism of Police Investigation and ‘Case Trade’
The former judge sharply criticized the country’s police investigation system, particularly the practice of “shown arrest.” He alleged that investigations are often conducted under outdated colonial-era laws, with police officers preparing witness statements without visiting crime scenes.
Hossain claimed that a form of “case trade” continues to operate, involving large sums of money, while thousands of innocent individuals remain in jail without trial.
He contrasted the situation with India’s Kolkata, where investigations are reportedly required to be completed within 30 days and made visible, implying that Bangladesh lacks similar accountability mechanisms.
Concerns Over Mass Arrests Linked to July Movement
Referring to cases filed following the political changes on August 5 and the subsequent July Movement, Hossain criticized what he described as indiscriminate inclusion of large numbers of accused individuals in single cases.
“Thousands of people were killed or injured during the July Movement, and justice must be ensured,” he said. “But naming thousands as accused in a single incident and keeping them detained for years through shown arrests is not justice.”
He also mentioned Law Adviser Asif Nazrul, alleging that while bail arrangements were swiftly made in cases involving certain well-known or connected individuals, ordinary innocent citizens often faced systemic denial of bail.
Disappointment With Reform Outcomes
As a member of the Judicial Reform Commission, Hossain admitted personal disappointment with the reform process.
“I joined the reform initiative with hope and commitment, but I am personally disappointed,” he said. “Nothing visible has been achieved for the welfare of the people. We have not been able to demonstrate even a fraction of the independent judiciary and fundamental rights protection we envisioned.”
He further noted that despite the submission of reports by the Police Reform Commission, Judicial Reform Commission, and Local Government Reform Commission, the interim government has failed to implement meaningful changes.
“The interim government could have introduced groundbreaking reforms within a short time if it had truly wanted to. But it has either failed to do so or was unable to,” he concluded.
