Home
+
Published : 09 Jul 2026, 10:17 AM
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has upheld the High Court's judgment that partially invalidates the 15th Amendment to the Constitution of Bangladesh.
The verdict was delivered on Thursday morning by a four-member Appellate Division bench led by Chief Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury.
Following the judgment, Attorney General Md Ruhul Quddus Kazal confirmed the decision.
He stated that the full four-member bench had dismissed all appeals filed against the High Court's verdict, including those by Dr Badiul Alam Majumdar and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. As a result, the High Court's ruling remains in force.
The attorney general further explained that the High Court had examined the constitutional changes introduced through the 15th Amendment, particularly those that effectively established a one-party governance framework. In its judgment, the High Court made observations on four major issues, including the restoration of the non-party caretaker government system, restoration of the constitutional provision for referendums, invalidation of Articles 7A and 7B, and restoration of the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction.
He said that, following the Appellate Division's ruling, the High Court's judgment stands, meaning that the caretaker government system has been restored. Other constitutional issues that the High Court left for parliament to decide will ultimately depend on parliamentary action.
On Wednesday, after concluding hearings for the third consecutive day, the Appellate Division had fixed Thursday for delivering its judgment.
The appeals had originally begun on Dec 3 of last year, with hearings continuing on Dec 4, 7, 8, and 10.
Fresh hearings on the appeals had resumed on Monday, continued on Tuesday, and concluded on Wednesday after lengthy arguments.
On Dec 11, a six-member Appellate Division headed by then Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed adjourned the hearing until Mar 5 of the current year.
The case reappeared before the court on Mar 8, when the Appellate Division ruled that the earlier partial hearing would not be treated as concluded.
In June, the matter was relisted, and on Jun 23, the court scheduled the hearing for Jul 6.
The legal battle before the Appellate Division involved three appeals and one leave-to-appeal petition.
One appeal was filed by Dr Badiul Alam Majumdar, secretary of Shushashoner Jonno Nagorik (SHUJAN), along with three others.
Another appeal was filed by Md Mofazzal Hossain, a resident of Naogaon.
A third appeal was filed by Mia Golam Porwar, Secretary General of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, while the Human Rights Support Society participated through a leave-to-appeal petition.
Dr Badiul Alam Majumdar and his co-appellants were represented by senior advocate Sharif Bhuiyan, assisted by advocates Karishma Jahan and Redwanul Karim.
Senior Advocate Mohammad Shishir Manir represented Jamaat-e-Islami.
Senior Advocate Imran A Siddiq appeared for the Human Rights Support Society, while advocate ASM Shahriar Kabir represented Md Mofazzal Hossain.
Senior Advocate Ehsan A Siddiq and Advocate Hamidul Misbah appeared on behalf of an intervening organisation.
The state was represented by Attorney General Md Ruhul Quddus Kazal and Additional Attorney General Aneek R Haque.
The legal proceedings before the Appellate Division began after the High Court released its full 139-page judgment on Jul 8 last year.
Following that judgment, Dr Majumdar and others sought a leave to appeal.
Dr Majumdar challenged the High Court's decision because it had only partially invalidated the 15th Amendment. He argued that the caretaker government system had not been fully restored, particularly because the constitutional provision regarding the oath of the chief advisor had not been reinstated.
On Nov 13 last year, the Appellate Division granted permission to appeal, resulting in three separate appeals.
Earlier, on Dec 17, 2024, a High Court bench comprising Justices Farah Mahbub and Debasish Roy Chowdhury delivered its final judgment on the matter.
The High Court declared Sections 20 and 21 of the 15th Amendment Act unconstitutional, holding that they unlawfully abolished the non-party caretaker government system.
The court also struck down: Articles 7A and 7B, Article 44(2) introduced through the amendment, and Section 47, which had abolished the constitutional provision for referendums.
Consequently, Article 142 as amended by the 12th Amendment was restored.
However, the High Court clarified that it had not invalidated the entire 15th Amendment, leaving parliament free to amend or retain the remaining provisions after consulting the people.
In the full judgment published on Jul 8, 2025, the High Court made several significant observations.
It held that abolishing the caretaker government system and politicising the electoral process had undermined the Constitution's basic structure, particularly the principles of democracy and popular sovereignty.
The court observed that the caretaker government system had originally been introduced following broad public consensus to ensure free and fair elections.
According to the judgment, its abolition led to the controversial elections of 2014, 2018, and 2024, depriving citizens of meaningful voting rights and ultimately contributing to the July-August mass uprising, during which thousands lost their lives or were permanently injured in pursuit of political change.
Regarding Article 7A, the court held that the provision imposing the maximum punishment for unconstitutional seizure of state power was overly vague and could be used to suppress dissent, thereby infringing freedom of speech.
Regarding Article 7B, the court ruled that making constitutional provisions permanently unamendable violated constitutional principles because it curtailed the authority of future parliaments and restricted the Supreme Court's power of judicial review.
The court also found that removing Article 44(2), which permitted transferring the High Court's writ jurisdiction to another court, constituted a direct interference with judicial independence and conflicted with the Constitution's basic structure.
The High Court further observed that the 15th Amendment had been passed in undue haste.
A parliamentary special committee initially recommended retaining the caretaker government system unanimously. However, after meeting the then prime minister, it reversed its recommendation and proposed abolishing the system.
Although parliament had allocated 14 days for committee review, the bill was returned after only four days without meaningful discussion and passed without debate.
The court also noted that the then government and lawmakers ignored an earlier Appellate Division order directing that the caretaker government system remain in force for two more parliamentary terms, amounting to a clear violation of the court's order.
The litigation followed extensive High Court hearings.
After a preliminary hearing on Oct 30, final hearings on the rule took place over twelve days during November and December.
During these proceedings, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, Gono Forum, Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, Insaniyat Biplob Bangladesh, and several other organisations and individuals joined as intervenors.
The legal challenge began after the July Uprising that toppled the Awami League government.
Amid growing demands for restoring the caretaker government system, Dr Majumdar, Tofail Ahmed, M Hafizuddin Khan, Zobairul Haque Bhuiyan, and Zahra Rahman filed the first writ petition on Aug 18.
On Aug 19, a High Court bench comprising Justices Naima Haider and Sashanka Shekhar Sarkar issued a rule asking why the 15th Amendment should not be declared unconstitutional.
Later, in October, freedom fighter Md Mofazzal Hossain of Raninagar, Naogaon filed another writ challenging the validity of 17 provisions of the amendment. On Oct 29, another High Court bench issued a rule in that case.
What began as two writ petitions eventually evolved into a major constitutional challenge involving multiple political parties and organisations before the Appellate Division.
The 15th Amendment was originally passed by parliament on Jun 30, 2011 during the Awami League government and received presidential assent on Jul 3, 2011.
It passed with 291 votes in favour and only one vote against.
The amendment introduced changes to 55 constitutional provisions.
Its most significant change was the complete abolition of the non-party caretaker government system, replacing it with elections conducted under the incumbent elected government before the expiry of parliament's term.
The amendment also restricted courts from issuing directions against decisions of the Election Commission, constitutionally recognised Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the father of the nation and restored the four state principles of nationalism, socialism, democracy, and secularism.
It increased reserved seats for women in parliament from 45 to 50, introduced the highest penalties for unconstitutional seizure of state power, incorporated Bangabandhu's Mar 7, 1971 speech, the Mar 26 Declaration of Independence, and the Proclamation of Independence into the Constitution.
