The High Court on Tuesday disposed of a writ petition that challenged the ruling the speaker gave in the parliament on June 18 regarding Justice AHM Shamsuddin Chowdhury.
The bench of Justice Hasan Foez Siddique and Justice ABM Altaf Hossain passed the order saying that the writ petition was disposed of with some observations, which would be given later.
The bench of Justice Naima Haider and Justice Khurshid Alam Sarkar on July 18 felt embarrassed to hear the writ petition filed by Supreme Court lawyer AKM Shafiuddin, also a former additional High Court judge.
The petitioner’s counsel Roakanuddin Mahmud moved the petition before the bench of Justice Hasan Foez Siddique and Justice ABM Altaf Hossain on Monday.
The petition challenged the speaker’s ruling that requested the chief justice to take appropriate action against the High Court judge accusing him of violating the constitution.
It also sought an order to restrain the speaker from issuing any such ruling in the future.
Rokanuddin argued that the speaker should have seen the order of the judge concerned before delivering the ruling against him. 
The speaker should not have delivered the ruling on the sensitive matter based on newspaper reports, Rokanuddin added.
He said that it was not wise to say that the judge, who has taken oath to protect the constitution, violated the constitution.
If any allegations are raised against a judge, only the president can refer it to the Supreme Judicial Council, Rokanuddin said.
Article 78(1) of the constitution deals with parliamentary privileges and immunities but there are some restrictions on exercising the privileges in accordance with Article 94(4) that deals with the independence of the judiciary, Rokanuddin contended.
Referring to the Rules of Procedure of the parliament, Rokanuddin argued that the rules prohibited remarks on sub judice matters.
Deputy attorney general Bishwajit Roy argued that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had no locus standi for its filing.
If the court issues any rule based on the petition, the parliament and the judiciary might be engaged in a conflict, he contended.
The speaker gave the ruling after parliament members demanded the removal of the High Court judge for the remarks he made on June 5 in the court, in which he accused the speaker of committing sedition and contempt of court by taking part in a discussion in the parliament ‘on a sub judice matter.’
On May 29, the speaker, referring to a High Court ruling asking the Roads and Highways Department to shift its office from the Supreme Court’s land to another place, said all the three organs of the state — the legislative, the executive and the judiciary — should work harmoniously by showing respect to each other for the betterment of the people.
‘None should think I am superior. If, I as the speaker think I am superior, it will not be right. If the government wants to see everything as it wishes it will not be correct either. Again if the judiciary thinks it can do everything it  will also not be right.’
‘If parliament passes laws against the people, they would react; when a government becomes autocratic, it faces the wrath of the people and there are many instances of mass uprising. If the court goes against the people, the people will naturally react,’ the speaker said.
The speakers also requested Supreme Court judges to be judicious about their decisions when public interests are involved.