—Audite Karim—

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the global tariff policy imposed by President Donald Trump was unlawful. In its verdict delivered on Friday, the court stated that President Trump had violated federal law by unilaterally imposing sweeping tariffs worldwide.

This ruling is being regarded as one of the most significant defeats for the administration during Trump’s second term. Over the past year, the court had sided with the President in several emergency matters concerning immigration, the removal of heads of independent agencies, and major cuts in government spending. However, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the bench delivered a 6-3 decision declaring that the imposed tariffs exceeded the limits set by law.

The court did not provide guidance on what would happen to the more than $130 billion in tariffs already collected. In his observation, Chief Justice Roberts stated that the President had claimed an extraordinary power to impose unlimited tariffs, for an indefinite period and on a vast scale, unilaterally. Considering the scope, history, and constitutional context of such authority, he noted that the President must demonstrate clear authorization from Congress to exercise it.

The court further stated that the emergency powers invoked by Trump to justify the tariffs were “insufficient.”

This ruling by the apex court of the United States sets a significant precedent for democracy. In a democracy, being elected by the people does not grant a head of state or government unlimited authority to act at will. They must operate within the framework of the law and the Constitution. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to ensure that the state is governed according to constitutional principles. An independent judiciary in a democracy not only upholds the rule of law and justice but also serves as the guardian of democracy and the Constitution.

Whenever a government exceeds its limits or acts contrary to democratic norms and the rule of law, it is the judiciary that intervenes. The US Supreme Court’s verdict is a recent example of this principle. Across democratic nations worldwide, independent judiciaries similarly safeguard constitutional governance.

For instance, the Supreme Court of India has, at various times, overturned decisions of the Indian government. In matters involving phone surveillance, the Court dismissed the government’s arguments and ordered an independent investigation, stating that citing national security alone cannot justify violating citizens’ right to privacy. It has also clarified that merely being accused of a crime does not justify demolishing someone’s home or property without following strict legal procedures.

In a democracy, the three branches of government – the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary – are equally important. The independent functioning of these three branches is a fundamental precondition for democracy. The judiciary’s responsibility is to ensure that the country is governed according to the Constitution. However, in weak democracies, ruling parties often attempt to control the judiciary by appointing loyal judges and using the courts to legitimize unlawful actions. In Bangladesh, the erosion of judicial independence has been a key factor in the rise of authoritarianism. Without establishing a truly independent judiciary, democracy can never be consolidated.

During the over-15-year rule of the Bangladesh Awami League, the judiciary was allegedly used arbitrarily. Many expected that after the mass uprising of 2024, the judiciary would become independent and act as a vigilant guardian of fundamental rights. However, disillusionment soon followed. According to Advocate Manzil Morshed, president of Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB), judges, particularly in the Supreme Court, were reportedly hesitant to issue orders out of fear.

During the interim government’s tenure, incidents such as attacks on defendants and lawyers within court premises, heated debates over sub judice matters, and controversies surrounding bail and sentencing reportedly hampered the judiciary’s independent functioning. In such an atmosphere of fear, justice cannot flourish. The judiciary, critics argue, failed to take a strong stance against widespread case manipulation and harassment. Many individuals arrested in false cases were deprived of justice. Over the 18 months of the interim government, numerous established industrialists and businesspeople allegedly became victims of retaliation. Bank accounts were frozen without adequate evidence, and in some cases, the Anti-Corruption Commission was accused of using the courts to seize assets without due process. Media trials further damaged reputations. The Supreme Court, as guardian of fundamental rights, is said to have failed to protect citizens adequately during this period.

Now, a newly elected government has assumed responsibility for governing the country. Under the leadership of Tarique Rahman, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has announced that its governance framework will be based on a 31-point agenda. The ninth point clearly commits to ensuring effective judicial independence in light of the Constitution and the landmark Masdar Hossain case verdict. It includes forming a Judicial Commission to reform the judiciary, placing subordinate courts under the Supreme Court’s control, establishing a separate secretariat under the Supreme Court, restoring the Supreme Judicial Council for judicial accountability, and enacting a Judicial Appointment Act under Article 95(c) of the Constitution to ensure appointments based on merit rather than political considerations.

If fully implemented, these reforms could establish genuine judicial independence.

The interim government has already created a separate secretariat for the judiciary, making it easier for the elected government to ensure independence. However, to strengthen democratic governance, the judiciary must now play an effective role. Just as courts in the United States, India, and other democracies actively protect citizens’ rights, the people of Bangladesh expect their judiciary to act as a vigilant guardian.

It is hoped that the government will soon form a neutral judicial inquiry commission to investigate past instances of interference in the judiciary. Such a commission should review the validity of mass cases filed during the interim government’s tenure, examine the freezing of bank accounts and alleged harassment under the guise of investigations, and recommend relief for those proven to have been falsely accused. This would reduce the burden of politically motivated cases on the judiciary and the ACC, restore confidence among business leaders and entrepreneurs, and help stabilize the economy.

A judicial commission could also help curb mob violence and case manipulation. Furthermore, it should investigate allegations of corruption, irregularities, and abuse of power during the interim government’s tenure. If conducted transparently, such an inquiry would strengthen judicial independence and reinforce constitutional balance among the three branches of the state. Ultimately, it would help Bangladesh build a genuine culture of accountability.

————————————————————–

Audite Karim is a writer and playwright. Email: [email protected]