After securing bail in seven separate cases, former Chief Justice ABM Khairul Haque has reportedly been shown arrested in yet another murder case filed with Jatrabari Police Station of Dhaka Metropolitan Police. On 23 May 2026, the order was passed by the court of Sarah Farzana Haque.
The development has sparked serious constitutional, legal, and ethical concerns across Bangladesh’s legal community. Particularly alarming are allegations that the arrest was carried out despite an earlier High Court directive reportedly instructing authorities not to show the former Chief Justice arrested in any new case without due judicial consideration.
A retired Chief Justice has been repeatedly arrested and implicated in so-called murder cases one after another, keeping him confined in jail for a prolonged period. It strikes at the very foundation of constitutional governance and the rule of law. When a court order of the High Court can be ignored or bypassed, it raises troubling questions about respect for judicial authority, due process, and the independence of the judiciary itself.
This is not simply a political or legal controversy surrounding ABM Khairul Haque. It is a matter that concerns the credibility of state institutions and public confidence in justice. In any constitutional democracy, the authority of the courts must remain above political pressure, administrative discretion, or retaliatory action. Otherwise, the erosion of judicial dignity ultimately weakens the rights and protections of every citizen.
A Rare and Troubling Precedent
A state governed by law cannot function if lower courts and law enforcement agencies selectively ignore orders of the High Court Division. Once the chain of judicial authority begins to collapse, citizens lose confidence not only in courts, but in the very idea of justice.
The issue becomes even more sensitive because the accused is a former Chief Justice of the country. Democracies around the world have witnessed former presidents, prime ministers, ministers, and military rulers facing prosecution. But the imprisonment of a former Chief Justice, particularly under circumstances linked to political tensions surrounding judicial decisions, is extraordinarily rare and historically significant.
This raises an unavoidable question: is there any precedent in Bangladesh or anywhere else in the world where a Chief Justice has effectively been imprisoned because of judgments delivered while serving on the bench?
Can Judges Be Punished for Their Judgments?
Judges must remain accountable under the law. No office should grant immunity from criminal prosecution. However, when criminal proceedings appear intertwined with controversial judicial decisions made during tenure, the matter ceases to be an ordinary legal issue. It becomes a constitutional crisis.
The danger lies not only in whether the allegations are true or false, but in the public perception that judicial rulings may later become grounds for political retaliation.
If judges begin to fear imprisonment after retirement for unpopular verdicts, judicial independence itself comes under threat.
Disregarding High Court Orders and the Question of Contempt
Courts do not exist merely to punish criminals. Their deeper role is to protect citizens from arbitrary power. That protection weakens when judicial orders are disregarded with apparent impunity.
The apparent disregard of High Court directives also raises concerns regarding contempt of court. In any constitutional democracy, willful noncompliance with superior court orders strikes at the heart of judicial authority. If state institutions selectively obey court rulings, then constitutional governance becomes conditional rather than absolute.
The judiciary cannot preserve its dignity if its own directives are ignored by institutions constitutionally bound to obey them.
The Rise of Mob and Institutional Collapse
Bangladesh today is already facing an alarming erosion of institutional trust. Mob violence has increasingly replaced legal process in many parts of the country. Public lynchings, attacks driven by rumors, and politically charged street justice are becoming disturbingly normalized.
When citizens see court orders ignored even by state actors, many begin believing that formal justice mechanisms no longer matter. That perception weakens the social contract between citizens and the state.
The rule of law survives not merely through written laws, but through public confidence that those laws apply equally to all.
Weak Institutions Create Space for Militancy
History shows that whenever institutions weaken, radical forces attempt to fill the vacuum. Bangladesh has fought painful battles against religious extremism and Islamic militancy over the past decades. Those forces thrive in environments where the public loses faith in courts, police, and democratic accountability.
The defense against militancy is not only policing. It is also the preservation of credible institutions, constitutional governance, and judicial independence.
A nation cannot effectively resist extremism while simultaneously undermining confidence in its own justice system.
The Rule of Law Cannot Be Selective
The question before Bangladesh today is therefore larger than the fate of one retired Chief Justice. It is about whether constitutional order still commands respect from all branches of the state.
If High Court orders can be ignored, if retired judges can face endless cycles of arrest despite judicial protection, and if public institutions increasingly operate under political or mob pressure, then the foundations of the republic itself begin to weaken.
Either court orders apply to everyone, including the state itself, or they ultimately protect no one at all.
End Note
There is hardly any recognized precedent in the modern world of a former Chief Justice being repeatedly shown arrested in case after case and kept imprisoned despite securing bail and judicial protection. Bangladesh is creating a deeply troubling precedent before the world.
This is not merely about one individual. It is about the message being sent to the judiciary, to state institutions, and to ordinary citizens.
When a former Chief Justice can be subjected to continuous cycles of arrest despite High Court directives, the principle of legal certainty itself begins to collapse. It creates the perception that court orders may no longer guarantee protection under the law, and that legal process can be overridden by political pressure, administrative discretion, or mob sentiment.
No democratic state can sustain the rule of law if judicial authority itself becomes vulnerable to selective enforcement.
A society becomes lawless not only when criminals ignore the law, but also when state institutions appear unwilling to respect constitutional boundaries and judicial orders. Once that culture takes root, fear replaces justice, institutions lose credibility, and citizens gradually lose faith in peaceful legal remedies.
Bangladesh fought for constitutional democracy and an independent judiciary with immense sacrifice. Weakening those foundations today risks normalizing a dangerous culture where power stands above law.
Parvez Hashem, Lawyer and Human Rights Defender
