Article 96 Tenure and removal of Supreme Court judges
Tenure of office of Judges
Judges who can easily be removed by politicians may hesitate to rule against the government. Secure tenure protects every litigant, from a detained citizen to a foreign investor in a dispute with the state.
The Sixteenth Amendment (2014) was declared void by the High Court Division on 5 May 2016 and the Appellate Division on 3 July 2017; the review was disposed of on 20 October 2024, so removal is through the Supreme Judicial Council. bdlaws still prints the 2014 text, which is not the operative law.
A Supreme Court judge holds office until the age of 67. During that time the judge cannot be dismissed simply for an unpopular decision. A judge who wishes to leave early writes a letter of resignation to the President, and the office then falls vacant.
Someone raises a serious concern about a judge's conduct or capacity, or the President directs an inquiry. Under the restored system the matter goes to the Supreme Judicial Council, a body of senior judges, rather than to Parliament or a government ministry.
The Council is made up of the Chief Justice and the two next most senior judges of the Appellate Division. It looks into the allegation, gives the judge a chance to answer, and decides whether the judge has become incapable or is guilty of gross misconduct.
If the Council reports against the judge, the President removes the judge by order under clause (6). The press reported two such removals of High Court judges in 2025, one in May and one on 5 November, each following the Council's findings.
The Sixteenth Amendment of 2014 gave Parliament the power to remove judges. The High Court Division struck it down in 2016 and the Appellate Division agreed in 2017. On 20 October 2024 the Appellate Division disposed of the government's review, confirming that the Council system applies.
In plain English
How Article 96 works
Article 96 protects judges' security of tenure. A Supreme Court judge serves until the age of 67 and may resign by writing to the President. The hard question is how a judge can be removed. The official website still shows a version under which Parliament removes a judge by a two-thirds vote. That version came from the Sixteenth Amendment of 2014, which the Supreme Court struck down. The earlier system therefore applies: a Supreme Judicial Council, made up of the Chief Justice and the two next most senior Appellate Division judges, inquires into a judge's conduct or capacity, and the President removes the judge only if the Council reports against him or her.
In practice
The removal system has changed several times. The Supreme Judicial Council model, which was in the Constitution before 2014, was replaced that year by parliamentary removal. The courts held that this threatened judicial independence. After the Appellate Division disposed of the review on 20 October 2024, lawyers confirmed that the Council again holds the power to inquire into judges, and the full judgment was released in June 2025. The Council has since been active: the President removed High Court judges under Article 96(6) in May 2025 and on 5 November 2025, as reported. Readers should note that bdlaws has not updated the text, so the printed clauses (2) to (4) do not reflect the law applied by the courts.
The text
What Article 96 says
96. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this article, a Judge shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-seven years.
[(2) A Judge shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed pursuant to a resolution of Parliament supported by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members of Parliament, on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
(3) Parliament may by law regulate the procedure in relation to a resolution under clause (2) and for investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge.
(4) A Judge may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the President.]
English text as published on the official Laws of Bangladesh website. The Bangla text is authoritative (Article 153). Where a court has changed the position, the status note above explains it.
Landmark cases
How the courts have read it
Appellate Division · 2017
Government of Bangladesh v Advocate Asaduzzaman Siddiqui (16th Amendment case)
Upheld the High Court Division verdict of 5 May 2016 declaring the Sixteenth Amendment void, so that Parliament could not remove Supreme Court judges (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2017, judgment of 3 July 2017).
Appellate Division · 2024
Review of the 16th Amendment judgment (Government of Bangladesh v Advocate Asaduzzaman Siddiqui)
On 20 October 2024 the Appellate Division disposed of the government's review petition with observations, leaving the 2017 judgment intact and returning the power to inquire into judges' conduct to the Supreme Judicial Council.
Case summaries are short descriptions for orientation, not a substitute for the judgment.
History
Amendments
- Fourth Amendment 1975 →Changed the removal of judges, as reported, so that a judge could be removed by order of the President for misbehaviour or incapacity.
- Fifth Amendment 1979 →Ratified, rather than enacted, a martial law Proclamation change made between 1975 and 1979 that provided for the removal of Supreme Court judges through a Supreme Judicial Council.
- Seventh Amendment 1986 →Raised the retirement age of judges in clause (1) from sixty-two to sixty-five (section 2).
- Fourteenth Amendment 2004 →Raised the retirement age of judges in clause (1) from sixty-five to sixty-seven, an age kept when the Fifteenth Amendment substituted Chapter I of Part VI in 2011.
- Fifteenth Amendment 2011 →Chapter I of Part VI (Articles 94 to 113) was substituted by section 31 of the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 2011, as noted on bdlaws.
- Sixteenth Amendment 2014 →Substituted clauses (2) to (4) for former clauses (2) to (8), moving removal from the Supreme Judicial Council to Parliament. Declared void by the courts (2016, 2017), with the review disposed of on 20 October 2024.
Connected provisions
Related articles
Questions
Article 96: frequently asked questions
What is the Supreme Judicial Council in Bangladesh?
It is the body of the Chief Justice and the two next most senior Appellate Division judges that inquires into the conduct or capacity of Supreme Court judges. If it reports that a judge is incapable or guilty of gross misconduct, the President may remove that judge. It also prepares a code of conduct for judges.
What was the 16th Amendment of Bangladesh?
The Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act 2014 gave Parliament the power to remove Supreme Court judges by a two-thirds vote. The High Court Division declared it void in 2016, the Appellate Division upheld that in 2017, and the government's review was disposed of on 20 October 2024, restoring the Supreme Judicial Council.
What is the retirement age of Supreme Court judges in Bangladesh?
Under Article 96(1), a judge of the Supreme Court holds office until he or she reaches the age of 67. A judge may resign earlier by writing to the President, and may be removed only through the procedure that the courts have held applies, namely the Supreme Judicial Council.
Sources
- Laws of Bangladesh: Constitution, Article 96 (bdlaws section page)
- Dhaka Tribune: Appellate Division disposes of 16th Amendment review; removal power returns to SJC (20 October 2024)
- Dhaka Tribune: SC: Judges' independence was at stake under 16th Amendment (full review judgment, 5 June 2025)
- BDJLS: Government of Bangladesh v Advocate Asaduzzaman Siddiqui, Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2017 (16th Amendment judgment)
- Jago News: HC justice Khandaker Diliruzzaman removed (22 May 2025)
- Jago News: Justice Khurshid removed from office under Article 96(6) (5 November 2025)
This guide explains the Constitution for general understanding. It is not legal advice. Constitutional reform proposals under discussion in 2026 are described as proposals until enacted.
Constitutional and writ practice
Need to rely on Article 96?
Our lawyers advise on writ petitions, fundamental rights and public law before the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
