SC orders probe into alleged verdict forgery by lawyers
File Photo
Allegations of verdict forgery have surfaced against several Supreme Court lawyers in 18 cases related to primary teacher recruitment. A committee headed by the Registrar General of the Supreme Court has been formed to investigate.
The committee has been directed to submit its report by 23 November. The court has set 26 November for a hearing.
A five-member Appellate Division bench led by Chief Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury issued the order on Monday.
Additional Attorney General Aneek R Haq said lawyer Siddique Ullah Miah and several others were involved in the forgery incident.
Earlier, after the matter was uncovered on Thursday, the chief justice directed Siddique not to leave Dhaka. On that day, Siddique offered an unconditional apology in the Appellate Division.
Aneek added that in a 2020 writ petition, a High Court bench had canceled the final results of government primary school teacher recruitment and ordered the preparation of a new merit list. Allegations against Siddique and several others said they did not follow regular procedures when adding new co-applicants while excluding original applicants in those cases.
Then orders were issued in favor of the newly added applicants, leaving out the original applicants.
It is reported that allegations of forgery have been raised against those lawyers in 18 such cases concerning primary teacher recruitment. The state party filed leave to appeal in the Appellate Division against these verdicts.
Meanwhile, these verdicts originated from a bench led by former High Court Justice Naima Hayder. As a result, the attorney general informed the court that other verdicts rendered by the judge also need to be reviewed.
Siddique said, “The court heard our senior lawyers. A probe committee is being formed regarding what irregularities exist in the hearing of the 18 cases. I believe that through the investigation committee, the actual irregularity present in managing the cases will come to light.”
However, he claimed, “It can be said no incident of forgery was observed here, but some irregularities were seen. As I say, since this is also a sub-judice matter, the investigation committee that was formed will submit it to the court.”
