Staff Reporter :
An appeal has been filed challenging the High Court verdict that partially annulled certain provisions of Bangladesh’s 15th Constitutional Amendment but upheld the rest, including the abolition of the caretaker government system.
The appeal was submitted on Monday (3 November) by Dr. Sharif Bhuiyan, on behalf of the petitioner Dr. Badiul Alam Majumdar, Secretary of SUJON (Citizens for Good Governance). According to the petitioner, the appeal was filed because the High Court did not declare the entire 15th Amendment void. “In our writ petition, we sought the annulment of the amendment in its entirety,” said Dr. Sharif Bhuiyan.
“But since the High Court only struck down parts of it, several issues remain unresolved. For example, the provision related to the oath of the Chief Adviser was repealed in the 15th Amendment, but the verdict did not restore it.”
Dr. Badiul Alam Majumdar stated, “The 15th Amendment suffered from both legal and procedural flaws. For this reason, we have appealed seeking its complete annulment.”
On 17 December last year, the High Court declared several sections of the 15th Amendment — including those abolishing the caretaker government system — unconstitutional and void, while reinstating the provision for national referendums.
However, the court did not strike down the amendment in its entirety.
In its observations, the court noted that democracy is an essential feature of the Constitution’s basic structure, and genuine democracy can only flourish through free, fair, and impartial elections.
It also remarked that the last three national elections under partisan governments failed to reflect the people’s will, leading to a loss of public confidence and ultimately contributing to the July Uprising.
The bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debashish Roy Chowdhury delivered the landmark judgment, declaring Articles 20 and 21 of the 15th Amendment — which had repealed the caretaker system — inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore void.
However, the court clarified that the rest of the amendment would remain in effect, allowing the next Parliament to review, amend, or refine those provisions in line with the public’s opinion and the legislative process.
This includes clauses concerning the recognition of the Father of the Nation and references to the March 26 speech.
Regarding the referendum, the court restored Article 142 of the Constitution by declaring Section 47 of the 15th Amendment invalid, ruling that its removal was incompatible with the Constitution’s basic structurer.
The verdict also struck down Articles 7A, 7B, and 44(2).
Article 7A had made it a criminal offense to suspend or abrogate the Constitution.
Article 7B declared certain fundamental provisions of the Constitution unamendable.
Article 44(2) allowed Parliament to empower other courts with some of the High Court’s jurisdiction over fundamental rights enforcement.
By annulling these provisions, the High Court reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution’s basic structure — including democracy, separation of powers, and people’s sovereignty — as foundational principles that cannot be altered by any amendment.
