HC rejects writ over interim govt activities

The High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition seeking an investigation into the 18-month activities of the immediate past interim government led by Muhammad Yunus.

The HC bench of Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Fatema Anwar passed the order after hearing the petition.

Advocates MK Rahman and Muhsin Rashid represented the petitioner, while Attorney General Md Ruhul Quddus Kazal appeared for the state.

The Attorney General argued that the petitioners lacked legal standing as they were not aggrieved parties. He also said a similar writ had earlier been dismissed and the latest petition was filed again on the same issue with political motives.

Senior Supreme Court lawyer Muhammad Muhsin Rashid had filed the writ petition with the HC on May 17 challenging the 18-month activities of the interim government.

Cabinet, and Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Secretary were made respondent to the rule.
Earlier, another writ petition was filed with the High Court challenging the legality of the oath and the process of forming the interim government.

On December 4, 2024, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court upheld the High Court verdict declaring lawful the oath and the process of forming the interim government.

Lawyers said the Appellate Division also dismissed the petitioner’s leave-to-appeal petition filed against the relevant High Court order with observations.

Later, another writ petition was filed challenging the activities of the Chief Adviser of the interim government.

Following the fall of the Awami League government on August 5, 2024, the President dissolved Parliament on August 6 of the same year. Subsequently, the interim government, led by Yunus, was formed on August 8.

Before the formation of the government and the swearing-in of the advisers, the President sent a reference to the Supreme Court seeking its opinion under Article 106 of the Constitution.

In response to the President’s special reference, the seven-member Appellate Division, headed by then Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan, gave its opinion on August 8.

The apex court observed that in order to fill the constitutional vacuum of the state in an emergency situation, the President could appoint the Chief Adviser and other advisers as an interim arrangement to carry out the executive functions of the state and could administer their oath.