Article 98 Additional judges of the Supreme Court
Additional Supreme Court Judges
Additional judgeships are the main entry route to the High Court bench. Whether they are confirmed fairly affects the quality and independence of the courts that decide citizens' and companies' cases.
The High Court Division faces a heavy backlog and the President is satisfied that more judges are needed for the time being. Instead of creating permanent posts straight away, the Constitution allows Additional Judges to be appointed for a fixed period.
The President appoints qualified advocates or judicial officers as Additional Judges for a period of up to two years. The usual consultation with the Chief Justice applies, and the Appellate Division has said the Chief Justice and the executive must both support each candidate.
Additional Judges hear and decide cases with the same powers as permanent judges. Their work during this period is observed, and their record helps the Chief Justice decide whether to recommend them for a permanent appointment.
At the end of the term the Additional Judge may be appointed as a permanent judge under Article 95, given a further term, or not continued. Disputes over judges who were not confirmed led to the Ten Judges case and the 2023 Altaf Hossain judgment.
In plain English
How Article 98 works
Article 98 lets the President add judges for a limited time when a division of the Supreme Court needs more hands. Additional Judges can be appointed for up to two years at a time, and they must meet the same qualifications as permanent judges. The President may also ask a High Court Division judge to sit in the Appellate Division for a temporary period. An Additional Judge can later be made a permanent judge under Article 95, or given a further term as an Additional Judge. In practice almost every new High Court judge starts as an Additional Judge, so this article works as a probation stage.
In practice
Most High Court judges are first appointed under Article 98 and later confirmed under Article 95. Non-confirmation has repeatedly reached the courts. In the Ten Judges case the Appellate Division required consultation with the Chief Justice and directed that the cases of ten Additional Judges who had been dropped be reconsidered. In A.B.M. Altaf Hossain (2023) it held that the executive must tell the Chief Justice of any adverse information about an Additional Judge before consultation, and that the President cannot appoint where the two sides disagree. The second limb of Article 98, letting a High Court judge sit temporarily in the Appellate Division, is used to ease pressure on the upper bench.
The text
What Article 98 says
98. Notwithstanding the provisions of article 94, if the President is satisfied that the number of the Judges of a division of the Supreme Court should be for the time being increased, the President may appoint one or more duly qualified persons to be Additional Judges of that division for such period not exceeding two years as he may specify, or, if he thinks fit, may require a Judge of the High Court Division to sit in the Appellate Division for any temporary period :
Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent a person appointed as an Additional Judge from being appointed as a Judge under article 95 or as an Additional Judge for a further period under this article.
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 · 2009
Bangladesh v Md. Idrisur Rahman (Ten Judges case)
29 BLD (AD) 79
Treated consultation with the Chief Justice on appointing judges as a binding constitutional convention, with primacy for the Chief Justice's view on legal ability, and directed reconsideration of additional judges who had not been confirmed.
Appellate Division · 2023
A.B.M. Altaf Hossain v Government of Bangladesh
Held that the Chief Justice should consult at least the two most senior judges, and that if the Chief Justice and the Prime Minister disagree about a candidate under Articles 95 or 98, the President cannot appoint that person.
Read more ↗Case summaries are short descriptions for orientation, not a substitute for the judgment.
History
Amendments
- Fourth Amendment 1975 →Amended, as listed by Banglapedia; the detailed wording could not be checked against the Act text.
- 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.
Connected provisions
Related articles
Questions
Article 98: frequently asked questions
What is an Additional Judge of the High Court Division?
An Additional Judge is a judge appointed under Article 98 for a fixed period of up to two years when the President is satisfied that a division needs more judges. Additional Judges have full judicial powers and may later be appointed permanent judges under Article 95 or given a further term.
Can an Additional Judge be dropped instead of confirmed?
Yes, the term can end without confirmation. However, the Appellate Division has held that the Chief Justice must be consulted, that adverse information must be shared with the Chief Justice, and that where the Chief Justice and the executive disagree on a candidate, the President cannot make the appointment.
Sources
- Laws of Bangladesh: Constitution, Article 98 (bdlaws section page)
- Supreme Court of Bangladesh: A.B.M. Altaf Hossain v Government of Bangladesh, Civil Appeal No. 232 of 2014 (judgment of 14 June 2023)
- The Daily Star: Consultation with the Chief Justice in appointing SC judges (18 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 98?
Our lawyers advise on writ petitions, fundamental rights and public law before the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
