The High Court has declared Sections 20 and 21 of the Fifteenth Amendment Act, which abolished the non-partisan caretaker government system, as unconstitutional and void. The court stated that these sections destroy the basic structure of the Constitution, which is democracy.
The court has also declared Articles 7A, 7B, and 44(2) introduced through the Fifteenth Amendment as unconstitutional and void.
Following the final hearing of separate writ petitions challenging the validity of the Fifteenth Amendment Act, including the highly debated abolition of the caretaker government system, the High Court bench comprising Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debashish Roy Chowdhury delivered the verdict today, Tuesday.
The Fifteenth Amendment brought about 54 additions, modifications, and replacements in the Constitution. In the verdict, the court stated that the entire Fifteenth Amendment Act is not being annulled.
The court left the decision regarding the remaining provisions to the next National Parliament. It stated that Parliament, in accordance with the law, can revise, modify, or amend these provisions based on public opinion.
The court noted that the provision for a referendum, which was part of Article 142 of the Constitution, was abolished. This provision was introduced in the Twelfth Amendment of 1991. Section 47 of the Fifteenth Amendment Act, which repealed the referendum provision in Article 142, has been declared inconsistent with the fundamental structure of the Constitution and void. Consequently, Article 142 of the Twelfth Amendment has been reinstated.
The High Court verdict has annulled Articles 7A, 7B, and 44(2). Article 7A referred to offenses such as the annulment or suspension of the Constitution, and 7B stated that the fundamental provisions of the Constitution were unamendable.
Article 44 addressed the enforcement of fundamental rights. Article 44(2) stated that Parliament could authorize other courts within their territorial jurisdiction to exercise the powers of the High Court Division under Article 102, without diminishing the High Court’s authority. This provision has been annulled in the verdict.
During the tenure of the Awami League government, the Fifteenth Amendment Act was passed in the National Parliament on June 30, 2011. The relevant gazette was published on July 3, 2011.
On August 18, a writ petition challenging the Fifteenth Amendment Act was filed by five prominent individuals, including Citizens for Good Governance (Sujan) Secretary Badiul Alam Majumdar. Following the preliminary hearing, the High Court issued a rule on August 19, asking why the Fifteenth Amendment Act should not be declared unconstitutional.
Several interveners, including BNP, Gano Forum, Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, and others, joined the proceedings to assist the court. During the hearing, the lawyers representing the petitioners, BNP, the state, Jamaat, Gano Forum, and other individuals and organizations presented their arguments.
Separately, a resident of Narayanpara, Raninagar, Naogaon, and a valiant freedom fighter, Md. Mofazzal Hossain, filed a writ petition in October challenging the validity of 16 sections of the Fifteenth Amendment Act. After the preliminary hearing, the same High Court bench issued a rule on October 29, questioning the constitutionality of these provisions. The final hearing on this rule concluded on December 4 after twelve days. The court then set December 17 as the date for delivering the verdict.
In continuation of this, the court, along with its observations, has declared the rule partially absolute in its verdict.
