Public Law & Institutions · Bangladesh · Historical legislation
The 2025 Ordinance created a defined institutional route for assisting the Chief Justice in giving advice to the President on Supreme Court judicial appointments. Its Council architecture is a useful historical record of how the instrument allocated participation, secretariat support and recommendation-making before the official 2026 repeal.
The Council the Ordinance established
The official text describes a permanent Supreme Judicial Appointment Council. Its stated purpose was to assist the Chief Justice, through selection of suitable persons and recommendations, in the process of advising the President on appointments to the Supreme Court. The instrument came into force immediately on 21 January 2025. The Council was therefore not described merely as an informal consultation arrangement: it was an institution expressly constituted by section 3 of the Ordinance.
Composition and institutional roles
Section 3 placed the Chief Justice in the role of Chairperson. The listed membership also included the most senior serving judge of the Appellate Division; specified senior judges of the High Court Division; an Appellate Division retired judge nominated by the Chairperson; the Attorney-General; and a law professor or legal expert nominated by the Chairperson after the consultation stated in the text. Section 4 made the Registrar General of the Supreme Court the ex officio Secretary, with the Registrar General and office providing secretarial support.
Meetings, deliberation and recommendations
The Ordinance allowed the Council to determine its own meeting procedure. It set out how the number of judges needed could be considered in light of prospective vacancies and other stated matters, and it distinguished recommendation routes for additional High Court judges, High Court judges and Appellate Division judges. The text also required deliberations and decisions when selecting a person for recommendation to be recorded and signed by the members present. These provisions are best read as the particular 2025 framework, not a statement of a continuing arrangement.
Current-status discipline
The official legislation record states that the 2025 Ordinance has been repealed by the Supreme Court Judges Appointment (Repeal) Act, 2026, Act No. 48 of 2026. A historical analysis may describe the architecture of the Ordinance. It should not infer the live appointment process, or the content of the 2026 Act, from the repeal notice alone.
How to use a historical instrument responsibly
First fix the relevant date and issue. Next identify the exact provision and version of the source being cited. Finally keep the historical text separate from the current legal framework, including any current legislation, rules, notifications or other materials that may govern a live matter. The 2025 instrument can be useful evidence of a historic legislative position; it is not a substitute for a current-law review.
TRW & Co works across regulatory, disputes and institutional matters. Explore our practice areas, read further Perspectives, or contact the firm for advice on a particular matter.
Frequently asked questions
Who chaired the Council under the 2025 Ordinance?
Section 3 named the Chief Justice as the Chairperson of the Supreme Judicial Appointment Council. Read the official record
What support did the Ordinance assign to the Registrar General?
Section 4 made the Registrar General the ex officio Secretary and provided for necessary secretarial assistance from that office. Read the official record
Is the 2025 Council framework current law?
No. The official portal lists the Ordinance as repealed by the Supreme Court Judges Appointment (Repeal) Act, 2026. Read the official record
Primary materials
The provisions discussed in this insight are drawn from the official Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division record. Readers should use the primary source and current authoritative materials for any present-day legal question.
This publication is general legal information. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon without advice tailored to the facts, jurisdiction and time period concerned.