The High Court has scheduled December 17 to announce its verdict on two writ petitions challenging the constitutionality of the 15th amendment to the constitution, which abolished the election-time caretaker government system in 2011 during the Awami League regime.
The bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury set the date on Thursday, following the conclusion of the final hearing on Wednesday.
One of the writ petitions was filed by five eminent citizens, including Shushashoner Jonno Nagorik president M Hafizuddin Khan, its founding secretary Badiul Alam Majumder, and local governance expert Tofail Ahmed.
Another petition was submitted by freedom fighter Mofazzal Hossain from Naogaon, challenging the inclusion of certain provisions in the constitution through the 15th amendment.
Senior lawyer Sharif Bhuiyan, representing the five citizens, argued for scrapping the 15th amendment in its entirety, calling it a threat to democratic norms and constitutional balance.
Several political parties, including the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, and Gano Forum, as well as other interveners, have also challenged the 15th amendment.
These groups have urged for reforms to ensure greater democratic accountability, alleging that the amendment entrenched mechanisms favoring authoritarianism and indefinite rule by the ruling party.
Attorney general Md Asaduzzaman, representing the state, defended specific provisions of the 15th amendment, particularly Article 2A, which guarantees equal rights for all faiths while designating Islam as the state religion.
At the same time, he criticised the 15th amendment for enabling an authoritarian framework, undermining democratic integrity, and consolidating ruling party dominance.
The impending verdict is expected to have far-reaching implications for Bangladesh鈥檚 political and constitutional landscape, potentially reshaping the balance of power and democratic governance in the country.
Former attorney general Fida M Kamal criticised the 15th amendment, particularly the inclusion of article 7B, which rendered certain constitutional provisions unamendable.
He argued that the article undermined the constitution鈥檚 fluidity and adaptability likening it to rigid religious texts.
鈥楢rticle 7B imposes undue restrictions on future parliaments, violating the principle that the constitution is a living document meant to evolve with societal needs鈥� Fida contended.