The Interim Government can transform into a Caretaker Government

The current interim government can transform into a caretaker government during the election period, according to Attorney General Md. Asaduzzaman.

In response to a question from the press on this matter, the country's chief legal officer stated, "This (interim) government can be renamed as the caretaker government. Just as the District Judge and Sessions Judge are the same person, where one is called the District Judge when handling civil cases and the Sessions Judge when handling criminal cases, similarly, the individuals in this interim government will become part of the caretaker government system when it transitions. There is no constitutional contradiction in this."

In reply to another question from the media, the Attorney General mentioned that, regarding the pending review of the 13th Amendment case in the Appellate Division, there is a possibility of returning to the caretaker government system based on the High Court's judgment. Why is this possible? Because the 13th Amendment related to the caretaker system has two parts. One part addresses whether the caretaker government is valid or invalid, where four judges said it was invalid, and three said it was valid. The second part declared that the next election should be held under the caretaker government. However, before this could be finalized, the 15th Amendment was introduced. It is assumed that the judgment regarding the caretaker government still stands, meaning there is no need for the Appellate Division's attention for at least the next two elections. In other words, one doesn't need to wait for the review ruling in the Appellate Division.

The Attorney General also mentioned that the judgment addresses how democracy and the rule of law were undermined, how the Constitution's basic structure was violated, and how the judiciary was affected. The judgment declared the abolition of the caretaker government system illegal. It also ruled that the provision to curtail people's power through a referendum was unconstitutional, thus reinstating the referendum. The court also stated that certain aspects of the 15th Amendment should be addressed by the next Parliament.

Referring to the then-Chief Justices ABM Khairul Haque and Syed Mahmud Hossain, the Attorney General held them responsible for the destruction of the judiciary and mentioned that Khairul Haque raised the issue of releasing the judgment on the caretaker government system 17 months after it was initially passed.

In response to a rule issued on the cancellation of several provisions of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, including the abolition of the caretaker government system, a High Court Division bench consisting of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debashish Roy Chowdhury declared part of the rule correct today.

The ruling declared that sections 20 and 21 of the 15th Amendment, which pertain to the abolition of the non-partisan caretaker government system, are unconstitutional and have been struck down. The court stated that these two sections of the 15th Amendment have destroyed the basic structure of the Constitution, which is democracy. Furthermore, the court ruled that provisions such as Article 7k, 7kh, and 44(2) added by the 15th Amendment are also unconstitutional and have been annulled.

The High Court did not annul the entire 15th Amendment law, stating that decisions regarding the remaining provisions of the amendment will be made by the next National Parliament. The Parliament will be able to amend, modify, or change these provisions based on public opinion in accordance with the law.

The court also declared that Section 47 of the 15th Amendment, which abolished the provision for a referendum under Article 142 of the Constitution, is inconsistent with the Constitution's basic structure and has been struck down. As a result, the provision for a referendum in the 12th Amendment’s Article 142 has been reinstated.

The 15th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in Parliament on June 30, 2011, under the Awami League government, and the related gazette was published on July 3, 2011.

On August 18, a writ petition was filed by five prominent individuals, including Badiul Alam Majumdar, the Secretary of Citizens for Good Governance (Sujan), challenging the 15th Amendment. After an initial hearing, the High Court issued a rule on August 19, asking why the 15th Amendment should not be declared unconstitutional.

Several parties, including the BNP, Gano Forum, Jamaat-e-Islami, and various organizations and individuals, intervened in the case to assist the court. During the hearing, lawyers presented arguments on behalf of the writ petitioners, BNP, the state, Jamaat, Gano Forum, and other individuals and organizations.

Meanwhile, a writ petition challenging the validity of 16 clauses of the 15th Amendment was filed by war hero Md. Mofazzal Hossain, a resident of Narayanpara in Raninagar, Naogaon. After preliminary hearings, the same High Court bench issued a rule on October 29, asking why those clauses should not be declared unconstitutional. A hearing on this rule was completed by December 4, and the court set December 17 for delivering its judgment. Following this, the High Court issued a ruling confirming the partial correctness of the rule.