150 for two reasons, firstly, it was transparent procedure and secondly, if it was retained, it would safeguard the ‘independence of judiciary’. Both sides admitted that the independence of judiciary is one of the basic features of the constitution. It is also admitted by both the parties that the basic features of the constitution cannot be changed, altered or amended. Though this court held that this provision had been retained for the independence of judiciary, it is contended on behalf of the State that it is not a basic feature of the constitution and that it has got nothing to do with the independence of judiciary. Mr. Ajmalul Hossain, the learned Attorney General and the Additional Attorney General submit that the fear of the judiciary about Parliament’s removal mechanism is entirely unwarranted. Mr. Hossain adds that there is no evidence before this court to infer that this impugned amendment would curtail the independence of judiciary and that apprehensions are based on conjectures and surmises. It is the common submission of the learned counsel