Sushashoner Jonno Nagorik, also known as Shujan, on Monday filed a petition with the Appellate Division seeking permission to appeal against a High Court verdict that had restored the election-time caretaker government system by declaring some provisions of the 15th amendment to the constitution unconstitutional.
The leave-to-appeal petition was filed arguing that the High Court should have declared the entire 15th amendment, passed by the then Awami League regime in 2011, unconstitutional for 19 reasons.
On December 17, 2024, a High Court bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury delivered the verdict while disposing of a writ petition filed by Shujan, including its secretary, Badiul Alam Majumder.
The High Court, however, refrained from giving any opinion on several other provisions introduced through the 15th amendment, stating that their validity should be determined by future parliaments in line with constitutional and legal principles.
Shujan stated in its leave petition that although the High Court had struck down sections 20 and 21 of the 15th Amendment Act 2011, which had removed article 58A and Chapter IIA of the constitution relating to the non-party caretaker government system, it failed to declare other related provisions void.
Sujan stated that several other sections of the 15th amendment act, including sections 22, 33, 44, 49, 51, and 53, had also amended articles 61, 99, 123, 147(4)(b)(d), 152, and the Third Schedule, all of which were connected to the caretaker system. Therefore, those sections too should have been declared unconstitutional to fully restore the non-party caretaker government system.
The petition further claimed that by inserting new articles 4A, 150(2), 7A, 7B, and the fifth, sixth, and seventh schedules, the amendment altered Bangladesh鈥檚 republican and democratic character and turned it into an 鈥榓uthoritarian necrocracy,鈥� as it symbolically established a deceased leader as the head of state.
Shujan said that these insertions distorted history since the referenced documents were written and adopted long before such concepts existed, making those schedules unlawful parts of the constitution.
It also argued that the 15th amendment undermined the basic structure of the constitution by disempowering the people, weakening the electoral system, and curtailing fundamental rights and freedoms.
Shujan said that the amendment was politically motivated to ensure a one-party rule and silence public dissent.
The petition said that the High Court correctly noted the amendment鈥檚 malafide intent but erred by not declaring it void in its entirety. It further stated that the amendment was unconstitutional as it was passed without the mandatory referendum required under article 142 for changing the preamble, article 8, and article 142 of the constitution.
