Supreme Court Lawyer Challenges Constitutional Provision on Parliament Membership and Presidential Election Schedule
Photo Collected
A Supreme Court lawyer has filed a petition with the High Court challenging the constitutionality of Article 70 of the Constitution—which mandates the forfeiture of a parliamentary seat for voting against one’s own party—and the legality of the schedule for the upcoming presidential election.
The petitioner, lawyer Yunus Ali Akond, confirmed on Thursday that he has requested a stay on the presidential election schedule while the court reviews the constitutional validity of the challenged provisions. He stated that the petition is expected to be heard on Sunday by a High Court bench comprising Justice Khizir Ahmed Chowdhury and Justice Md. Ziaul Haque.
The Election Commission announced the schedule for the 23rd presidential election on August 6, setting the voting date for August 20.
The petition argues that Article 70 is inherently contradictory to the spirit of the Constitution and democratic principles. Under this article, a member of parliament who resigns from their party or votes against their party in parliament loses their seat. The petitioner contends that this provision strips lawmakers of their freedom and renders the presidential election meaningless, as the governing party currently holds a two-thirds majority, effectively predetermining the outcome.
The plea seeks a court rule asking why Article 70 should not be declared inconsistent with the Constitution and why the Election Commission’s August 6 schedule should not be declared legally void. It further requests an injunction to halt the election process while the court deliberates the case.
This is not the first time lawyer Yunus Ali Akond has challenged Article 70. He previously filed a petition in 2018, which led to a split verdict from a High Court bench in January of that year. The case was subsequently referred to a single bench, which dismissed the petition on March 18, 2018.
Addressing the previous dismissal, Akond explained that the earlier petition was rejected as a motion. He noted that he has included information regarding the previous filing in the current petition, asserting that new legal arguments permit the case to be reopened.
0%
0%
0%
0%
