Some judges of the higher judiciary declining invitation by president to tea as was reported in the media recently created both surprise and dismay, if only because of the unusual nature of the happening. An invitation to tea can, of course, be seen as an innocent gesture, even when the host is the president of the republic himself and invitees are the revered senior judges. But as it turned out, there was more to it than met the eye.

The smokescreen over the matter thickened further when a senior most judge of the High Court Division after receiving the letter of invitation tendered his resignation, ostensibly on health ground; and another judge sought a few days' time preparatory to resignation. It was not long before everyone knew that the invitation was a veiled intimidation of the judges by the present military-backed interim government. Quite a few judges have received the call from the Bangabhaban either by telephone or by letter. It is further learnt that following this the chief justice and the registrar called on the president.

It is learnt that when the previous adviser for law and information was in office, charges of incompetence and partisanship were made against a few of the judges. The government, according to a report, prepared a list of 23 judges who were undesirable in its eyes and later shortened the list to 10. It is of supreme importance in a democracy or an aspiring democracy that the judiciary should be competent, independent and free from corruption. Even in an autocracy it has been seen at times that an independent and capable judiciary comes in defence of people's rights when these are violated and thus catalyses the movement towards democratisation.

The neutrality, dignity and independence of the judiciary must be upheld at all cost, whatever changes the colour of the government may assume. Unfortunately, the judicial institution has been undermined at different times. Here we are not defending every single judge. The successive governments of the past in effect sought to politicise the institution by pursuing a partisan policy of recruitment and promotion. If a purge of a few rotten apples in the judiciary is necessary, there is a legitimate way of doing so by following the provisions of the constitution.

Complaints may be lodged with the Supreme Judicial Council for action against the errant judges. But intimidating tactics by the government is an unconstitutional step and likely to compromise whatever remains of the dignity of the judiciary.