Attorney general Md Asaduzzaman argued before the High Court on Wednesday that the interim government wanted to declare the ousted Awami League鈥檚 15th amendment to the constitution largely unconstitutional, retaining only select provisions.
He contended that the 2011 amendment was strategically crafted to establish an authoritarian government, enabling the Awami League to retain power for an indefinite period.
Asaduzzaman, however, argued for the retention of Article 2A, which designates Islam as the state religion while ensuring equal rights for other faiths, including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity.
He also supported retaining Article 95, governing the appointment and retirement age of Supreme Court judges, and Article 96, which establishes the Supreme Judicial Council for the removal of judges for incapacity or misconduct.
The attorney general noted that the Appellate Division had recently clarified issues related to Articles 95 and 96 in its verdict in the 16th amendment which was incorporated in the constitution in 2014 empowering the parliament to remove Supreme Court judges.
Asaduzzaman鈥檚 argument came during the final hearing of a public interest litigation challenging the legality of the 15th amendment.
On August 19, 2024, the High Court had issued a rule questioning why the 15th amendment鈥攁bolishing the caretaker government system鈥攕hould not be declared unconstitutional and why actions based on it should not be invalidated.
The petitioners include prominent citizens, among others, Sushashoner Jonno Nagorik president M Hafizuddin Khan, secretary Badiul Alam Majumder, and local government expert Tofail Ahmed.
The bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury adjourned the hearing until Thursday.
In his arguments, the attorney general claimed that the 15th amendment was designed to entrench Awami League eventually ousted in a student-led uprising on August 5 this year.
He asserted that the amendment undermined democratic principles, the independence of the judiciary, and fundamental rights, allowing suppression of opposition through extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and politically motivated cases.
Asaduzzaman pointed to controversial provisions within the amendment, such as the classification of citizens as 鈥楤angalees鈥� or 鈥楤angladeshis鈥� and the formal recognition of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the 鈥楩ather of the Nation鈥欌�攁 designation absent in the original constitution.
He noted that under the amendment, derogatory remarks against Sheikh Mujib were now treated as treasonous offences.
The attorney general also criticised Article 7A, which criminalises any attempt to repeal, suspend, or subvert the constitution through force or unconstitutional means, prescribing capital punishment for sedition. He argued that this restriction limits democratic change and disregards the recent mass uprising that deposed the Awami League government.
Further, Asaduzzaman expressed opposition to the amendment鈥檚 emphasis on socialism and freedom from exploitation as fundamental state principles, stating that socialism was not part of the constitution鈥檚 original structure.
He also objected to Article 8(1), which enshrines nationalism, socialism, democracy, and secularism as foundational state policies, and Article 9, which defines citizens as 鈥楤angalees鈥� on the basis of Bangalee nationalism.
Asaduzzaman argued that the mother tongues of the national minority people were denied by calling them 鈥楤angalees鈥�.