Legal Counsel Urges Supreme Court to Retain Specific Provisions in 15th Amendment Challenge
Photo Collected
Senior counsel Sharif Bhuiyan has requested the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court to preserve specific provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, arguing that a complete invalidation of the amendment could create a legal vacuum. During the ongoing hearing regarding the High Court’s ruling on the amendment—which notably abolished the caretaker government system—Bhuiyan urged the four-member bench, led by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, to strike down most of the amendment while sparing three specific sections.
Bhuiyan specifically highlighted concerns regarding the Supreme Judicial Council, arguing that if the entire amendment is annulled, the mechanism for judicial oversight could be compromised. He noted that the council was initially introduced via military decree and later integrated into the Constitution through the Fifth Amendment, which was subsequently declared illegal. However, the Fifteenth Amendment reinstated the provision. To avoid legal instability, he requested that Section 31, which addresses judicial tenure and the Supreme Judicial Council, be protected. Additionally, he sought the preservation of Sections 36 and 41, which involve the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 102 and the formalization of political party mandates, respectively.
বিজ্ঞাপন
The court is currently reviewing three separate appeals against the High Court’s verdict, filed by Citizens for Good Governance (SHUJAN) secretary Badiul Alam Majumdar and three others, Nogaon resident Mofazzal Hossain, and Jamaat-e-Islami Secretary General Mia Golam Parwar. The hearings, which commenced earlier this week, have drawn a broad spectrum of legal arguments regarding the limits of judicial intervention in constitutional restructuring.
Representing Jamaat-e-Islami, senior advocate Mohammad Shishir Monir argued that the Fifteenth Amendment functioned less as an amendment and more as a wholesale rewriting of the Constitution. Monir posited that the court should exercise restraint regarding policy-based decisions and fundamental state principles, suggesting that these matters fall under the sovereign purview of Parliament. He contended that if the judiciary intervenes in legislative policy, it risks encroaching upon the mandate of elected representatives.
বিজ্ঞাপন
However, Monir emphasized a distinction between policy and constitutional framework, asserting that the court must intervene when amendments fundamentally conflict with the “basic structure” of the Constitution, specifically citing the abolition of the caretaker government system. He argued that the absence of a caretaker system undermines democratic competition and the integrity of the state, urging the bench to strike down provisions that violate these core democratic foundations while deferring purely policy-oriented decisions to Parliament.
The proceedings also featured arguments from additional legal experts, including Imran A. Siddiq, A.S.M. Shahriar Kabir, and intervenors Ehsan A. Siddiq and Hamidul Misbah. The state was represented by Additional Attorney General Aneek R. Haque. The Appellate Division is scheduled to continue the hearing today.
0%
0%
0%
0%
