Fresh Political Dispute: July Charter, referendum row deepens after HC rule
Abu Jakir :
The controversy surrounding the implementation of the July National Charter and the constitutional reform process has begun to emerge as a major political issue in Bangladesh after the High Court issued a rule questioning the legality of several related provisions.
The court’s intervention has intensified debate among political parties over the July Charter, a reform framework aimed at restructuring the state following the 2024 uprising.
Analysts and political observers say the dispute could shape the country’s political discourse in the coming months.
The High Court on Tuesday issued a rule questioning the legality of the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order, 2025, the Referendum Ordinance, 2025, and the letter issued to lawmakers regarding taking oath as members of the Constitution Reform Council.
The bench asked the respondents to explain why the provision for a “yes” or “no” vote in the referendum under the implementation order and the letter issued by the parliament secretariat on February 16 for lawmakers to take oath as members of the Constitution Reform Council should not be declared void and unconstitutional.
It also sought explanations as to why Schedule-3 of the Referendum Ordinance, which contains 30 reform proposals agreed upon by political parties, should not be declared unlawful.
The court asked the secretaries of the law, cabinet and Jatiya Sangsad divisions, the principal secretary to the prime minister, the Election Commission and the chief election commissioner to respond within four weeks.
The legal development comes amid growing political tensions over the constitutional reform process following the national election.
Although the “yes” vote prevailed in the referendum on constitutional reform held alongside the parliamentary election, the BNP, which secured a sweeping majority in the 13th parliamentary polls and subsequently formed the government, did not take oath as members of the Constitution Reform Council.
In contrast, lawmakers elected from Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami and its allied National Citizen Party (NCP) took the oath both as members of parliament and as members of the constitutional reform body.
The BNP’s refusal to take the oath has triggered debate over whether the Constitution Reform Council will ultimately be formed, raising questions about the future of the reform agenda.
Election reform expert Badiul Alam Majumdar, a former member of the National Consensus Commission, warned that failing to implement the July Charter could have serious consequences for Bangladesh’s political future.
He noted that political parties, including the BNP, had signed the July Charter with a commitment to implement it if voted to power.
According to Majumdar, the BNP’s recent statements questioning the constitutional basis of a referendum and the Constitution Reform Council contradict that earlier pledge.
He warned that without structural reforms, even credible elections could lead to a new form of authoritarianism or the emergence of “tyrants”.
“If the government fails to implement the July Charter after signing it, they could face consequences similar to those faced by the previous Sheikh Hasina government,” he cautioned.
Meanwhile, BNP Standing Committee member and Home minister Salahuddin Ahmed said political statements may vary but the court’s decision would also need to be considered by parliament during lawmaking.
“Whatever directives come from the court regarding matters under litigation must also be considered by parliament while enacting laws,” he said.
Earlier, on the day lawmakers took oath as members of parliament, Ahmed had explained that BNP lawmakers did not take the oath as members of the Constitution Reform Council because the existing constitution does not specify who would administer such an oath or include a prescribed oath format.
He later told reporters that reflecting the people’s verdict from the referendum would require parliament first to enact the necessary laws and constitutional amendments.
“The current constitution does not contain any provision for a Constitution Reform Council. Considering that, we did not take the oath and we were not approached in that regard either,” he said.
The High Court’s rule has also drawn sharp reactions from Jamaat-e-Islami and the NCP, both of which expressed concern over what they described as attempts to politicise the judicial process.
In a statement issued late Tuesday night, Jamaat Secretary General Mia Golam Parwar said political issues should not be dragged into the courtroom.
He argued that past attempts to resolve political disputes through the judiciary had not yielded positive results and instead created confusion and stagnation in national life.
Parwar also alleged that attempts were being made to shift political responsibility onto the courts for political gain.
“If petitions are filed in a planned manner with behind-the-scenes encouragement, it would be a hypocritical and self-destructive step,” he said.
Earlier, at a press conference at the party’s central office after the petitions were filed on Monday, Jamaat central executive council member and lawyer Shishir Monir described the petitions as politically motivated.
He alleged that the government had a role in encouraging the filing of the petitions through two lawyers.
Strong reactions also came from the National Citizen Party. Party spokesperson Asif Mahmud Sajeeb Bhuiyan accused the BNP of playing a “dual game” over the July Charter.
He claimed the ruling party was trying to question the legitimacy of the charter through legal challenges while selectively accepting parts of the reform consensus.
According to Bhuiyan, issues agreed upon in the consensus commission and endorsed through referendum were now being treated selectively.
