The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing new appeals challenging its 2011 verdict that annulled the election-time caretaker government system, which had allowed the Awami League to abolish the provision from the Constitution of Bangladesh.
A seven-member bench, led by chief justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, started hearing arguments from senior lawyer Sharif Bhuiyan, representing Sushashoner Jonno Nagorik president M Hafizuddin Khan, secretary Badiul Alam Majumder, local government expert Tofail Ahmed, and citizens Md Jobirul Hoque and Zahrah Rahman.
Earlier the appellate division allowed the eminent citizens on August 26, 2024, to file a petition to challenge the verdict after prime minister Sheikh was outed through a student-led mass uprising on August 5, 2024.
Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami also later filed another petition supporting the eminent citizens.
According to the appeals, the previous Appellate Division led by then Chief Justice ABM Khairul Haque had observed in open court on May 10, 2011, that the 10th and 11th national elections could still be held under a caretaker government.
However, when the full text of the verdict was released on September 16, 2012 鈥� after Justice Khairul鈥檚 retirement 鈥� those observations were omitted. Instead, the written judgment stated that only elected lawmakers could form a government, effectively ruling out the caretaker system.
In the final judgment, Justice Khairul also proposed that the Jatiya Sangsad be dissolved 42 days before an election and a small interim cabinet run routine affairs until a new government took office 鈥� a proposal, critics say, had no constitutional basis.
Justice Md Wahhab Miah, one of the seven judges who heard the case, later commented that the written verdict did not match the 鈥榮hort order鈥� delivered in open court.
The appeals further argued that the caretaker system was struck down by a narrow 4-3 majority, with three judges supporting Justice Khairul鈥檚 view and three others, including Justice Wahhab Miah, dissenting鈥攔aising questions about the legitimacy and democratic implications of the ruling.
