High Court Issues Rule on Legality of July National Charter and Referendum Ordinance

Court asks government to explain why constitutional reform order and key provisions of referendum law should not be declared ultra vires

Dhaka — The High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has issued a rule asking the authorities to explain why the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order and certain provisions of the Referendum Ordinance should not be declared illegal.

The rule was issued on Tuesday by a High Court bench comprising Justice Razik Al Jalil and Justice Md. Anwarul Islam Shahin following hearings on two separate writ petitions challenging the legality of the measures.

In one petition, Supreme Court lawyer Chowdhury Md. Redowan-i-Khoda challenged the constitutional validity of the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order as well as Section 3 and the schedule of the Referendum Ordinance. The petitioner argued that the provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution and sought a declaration that they were enacted without lawful authority.The petition also sought an interim order to suspend the operation of Section 3 and the schedule of the Referendum Ordinance pending disposal of the rule.

In a separate writ filed last week, another Supreme Court lawyer, Gazi Md. Mahbub Alam, challenged the legality of the same implementation order and a February 16 letter issued for administering the oath to members of the Constitutional Reform Council formed under the order. The petition contends that both the order and the oath-related letter are unconstitutional and should be annulled.

During the hearing, senior lawyers Ahsanul Karim and Syed Mamun Mahbub, along with Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua and Gazi Kamrul Islam, represented the writ petitioners. Senior lawyer Mohammad Hossain appeared for the National Citizen Party (NCP), while senior lawyer Mohammad Shishir Monir represented Jamaat-e-Islami.

On behalf of the state, Acting Attorney General Mohammad Arshadur Rouf and Additional Attorney General Anik R. Haque opposed the petitions.
The court has directed the respondents to respond to the rule, setting the stage for further hearings on the constitutional validity of the reform measures.

spot_img
spot_imgspot_img