The High Court is scheduled for today to fix a date for its verdict on two writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of the 15th amendment to the constitution that scrapped the election-time caretaker government system in 2011 during the Awami League rule.
The bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury made the announcement on Wednesday after concluding the final hearing on the two writ petitions.
Former attorney general Fida M Kamal, appearing for a petition filed by freedom fighter Mofazzal Hossain from Naogaon, advocated for reinstating the referendum mechanism to ensure the alignment of any amendment to the constitution with the will of the people.
The petition challenged the legality of several provisions introduced through the 15th amendment that abolished the caretaker government system and declared certain constitutional provisions unamendable.
Earlier on August 19, 2024, another High Court bench issued a rule questioning the legality of the 15th amendment.
The rule was issued following a writ petition filed by five eminent citizens, including prominent citizens such as Sushashoner Jonno Nagorik president M Hafizuddin Khan, its founding secretary Badiul Alam Majumder and local government expert Tofail Ahmed.
Their lawyer Sharif Bhuiyan argued for scrapping the 15 amendment to the constitution in its entirety.
Several political parties, including the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami and the Gana Forum, and some individuals also challenged the 15th amendment as interveners and called for greater democratic accountability.
They argued that the 15th amendment strategically undermined democratic principles by consolidating power and eliminating checks and balances between the powers of the three state organs.
Fida M Kamal criticised the 15th amendment, particularly the inclusion of article 7B, which rendered certain constitutional provisions unamendable.
He argued that the article undermined the constitution鈥檚 fluidity and adaptability likening it to rigid religious texts.
鈥楢rticle 7B imposes undue restrictions on future parliaments, violating the principle that the constitution is a living document meant to evolve with societal needs鈥� Fida contended.
鈥楴o parliament has the authority to bind its successors or predecessors in this manner,鈥� he said.
Article 7 of the constitution, which declares that all powers of the republic belong to the people, has been effectively nullified by the removal of the referendum mechanism, contended the senior lawyer.
Fida underscored the importance of restoring the referendum system, arguing that it would ensure participatory democracy by subjecting major constitutional amendments to public approval.
He also called for reforms to article 70, which prevents lawmakers from voting against their party in parliamentary proceedings.
He said, 鈥楢rticle 70 stifles individual decision-making and meaningful parliamentary debate, undermining the essence of democracy. A reformed provision would strengthen the parliamentary system and enhance accountability.鈥�
Earlier, attorney general Md Asaduzzaman argued for retaining certain aspects of the 15th amendment, including article 2A, which ensured equal rights for all faiths while designating Islam as the state religion.
He criticised the 15th amendment for attempting to entrench an authoritarian framework, enabling indefinite retention of power by the ruling party.
He emphasised that the Appellate Division had already clarified issues related to judicial appointments and accountability in its verdict on the 16th amendment to the constitution.
Fida M Kamal reiterated that parliament, as a creation of the constitution, must operate within its confines.
鈥楶arliament in Bangladesh is not sovereign like the British parliament,鈥� he said.
鈥楲egislation that contradicts the fundamental will of the people or violates constitutional principles should be declared invalid,鈥� he argued.