The Supreme Court of Bangladesh has granted leave to appeal against its earlier verdict concerning the state’s “Warrant of Precedence,” which determines the order of priority among important state officials. The court fixed November 4 for the appeal hearing, with the matter to be placed at the top of the cause list on that day.
A six-member bench of the Appellate Division, headed by Justice Md Ashfaqul Islam, issued the order on Thursday. The court said that the appeal hearing will proceed following the approval of leave.
Earlier, after concluding hearings on July 30, the court had reserved its order, which was delivered today.
The case dates back to 2015, when the Appellate Division revised the Warrant of Precedence, placing constitutional officeholders higher in order and upgrading district judges by eight positions to equal status with secretaries. The full judgment was published in November 2016.
The court’s observations also suggested elevating the Chief Justice’s position to the same level as the Speaker of Parliament and ensuring due inclusion of national award recipients—such as Independence Award and Ekushey Padak winners, as well as decorated freedom fighters—in the hierarchy.
Challenging that ruling, the Cabinet Secretary and the then-chairman of the Public Service Commission filed separate review petitions in 2017. Ninety deputy and assistant attorneys general later joined as parties to the review. The hearing of these petitions began on April 27 this year and concluded on July 30.
On behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, senior lawyer Salah Uddin Dolon argued in court, while senior lawyers Probir Neogi and Nihad Kabir represented the writ petitioners. Senior lawyer Ahsanul Karim appeared for the deputy and assistant attorneys general.
The Warrant of Precedence was first formulated in 1986 under the Rules of Business of the Cabinet Division and was issued after presidential approval. It underwent several amendments, the last being in December 2003.
In 2006, the then secretary-general of the Bangladesh Judicial Service Association, Md Ataur Rahman, challenged the validity of the order in a writ petition, arguing that constitutional officeholders were placed below administrative cadre officials.
Following the hearing, the High Court declared the 1986 Warrant of Precedence (as amended) illegal and void in February 2010. The state appealed in 2011, leading to the 2015 Appellate Division verdict. With leave now granted, the long-running dispute is set for a final hearing on November 4.
