Justice Minister Adam Bodnar is pushing for direct oversight of the courts, but critics say this plan to restore what is described as the rule of law would actually undermine it. Sebastian Kaleta, a former deputy head of the Ministry of Justice, described the draft changes to the Regulation on the Operation of Ordinary Courts as a step that breaks rather than strengthens judicial independence.
According to a Friday release from the Ministry of Justice Office of Communications and Promotion, Bodnar, who also serves as the attorney general, submitted the draft amendment to the Regulations on the Operation of Ordinary Courts for interministerial consultation. The measure aims to redefine how judges are excluded from certain cases and who participates in reviewing such requests.
The proposal states that requests to remove a judge from a case, based on the judge’s appointment method, will not be recognized by judges who share the same appointment pathway. The text specifies that judges appointed by the National Council for the Judiciary, created by the National Council for the Judiciary Act of December 8, 2017, would not take part in processing those exclusion requests. The draft notes that these judges are not involved in case assignment through the Random Case Assignment System.
The ministry’s statement frames the change as a safeguard for consistent decision making within the courts while limiting influence from certain appointments. Kaleta, however, argues that Bodnar’s early actions set off a “major shock” to the justice system and the country’s constitutional order. He contends that the times of centralized decrees from an earlier era should not be a guide for today, insisting that Poland operates as a constitutional republic with checks and balances that protect judicial autonomy.
Kaleta, a member of parliament from the party in opposition, describes Bodnar’s approach as an assault on judicial independence. He claims the plan would overturn constitutional norms, chip away at established laws, and direct judges on how to decide cases in both criminal and civil matters. He also argued that Bodnar seeks to intervene directly in which judges can adjudicate specific issues, portraying the move as an overreach by the executive branch.
Another critic, MP Michał Woś, stressed that the sources of law are clear. He noted that primary authority rests with the constitution, international agreements ratified by parliament, and legally binding statutes. Sub-statutory acts come after these foundations, and he reminded that courts, including administrative and constitutional ones, have long held that sub-statutory acts cannot conflict with laws. Woś rejected the notion that a decree from Bodnar could supersede established legal hierarchies, arguing it would echo a Stalinist-era mindset and undermine the modern separation of powers.
Kaleta used social media to lay out a proposed hierarchy of legal sources that he believes would relegate the constitution to a secondary role. He listed a sequence that began with judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, followed by EU treaties, European legal milestones, interpretations linked to former Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Bodnar’s decrees, and finally Sejm resolutions. The post framed the shift as a domination of political will over statutory law and constitutional guarantees.
In reaction to Bodnar’s actions, the political debate intensified as opponents argued that the centralization of control threatens the very fabric of judicial independence. The discourse touched on whether the executive is attempting to rewrite the rules on how courts assign and decide cases, a move supporters say would standardize procedures while critics view it as a power grab that could compromise fair adjudication.
The debate has also sparked broader concerns about the balance of powers in Poland, with commentators emphasizing the need to uphold constitutional safeguards and the rule of law in line with European standards. Proponents of Bodnar’s reform counter that the current system allows for too much discretion and may lead to inconsistencies in rulings. They argue that clarifying the rules can reduce the potential for influence based on appointment paths and improve transparency in judicial proceedings.
The dialogue continues as political factions weigh the implications for judicial independence and constitutional integrity. Supporters maintain that modernizing the framework will strengthen the courts, while opponents warn that the changes could open doors to political interference in judicial decisions. The public awaits further developments on how these proposals will be reconciled with Poland’s constitutional commitments and its obligations under European law, and how future checks and balances will shape the independence of the judiciary.
tkwl/PAP/X
READ ALSO:
– Another controversy surrounding Bodnar actions references a ministerial regulation viewed by some as a Stalinist-era style separation of powers. Bodnar has drawn criticism for what some describe as attacks on the National Council for the Judiciary. The Council’s president has responded, expressing hopes that constitutional norms will be respected and followed.