The High Court on Tuesday asked the government to explain within four weeks why transferring the authority to administer the president鈥檚 oath from the chief justice to the speaker through the 15th amendment to the constitution should not be declared unconstitutional.
The court also questioned why the original oath-taking process, as outlined in the Provisional Constitution of Bangladesh Order, 1972, should not be reinstated to ensure that the chief justice administers the president鈥檚 oath in line with the constitution鈥檚 original intent and spirit.
The bench of Justice AKM Asaduzzaman and Justice Syed Enayet Hossain issued the rule after hearing a public interest writ petition filed by poet, essayist, lyricist, and columnist Shahidullah Faraizee.
The court asked the cabinet secretary, law secretary, and Supreme Court registrar general to respond to the rule.
Faraizee鈥檚 lawyer, Omar Farouq, argued that the 15th Amendment, enacted in 2011 during the Awami League regime, violated the 1972 constitution by stripping the chief justice of the authority to administer the president鈥檚 oath.
He sought the reinstatement of Clause 10 of the Provisional Constitution of Bangladesh Order, 1972 which mandates that the chief justice administers the oath of office to the president.
The clause further stated that the president, in turn, administers the oath to the prime minister, ministers, state ministers, and deputy ministers.
It empowered the cabinet to prescribe the form of the oath.
Farouq pointed out that this provision remained unchanged until the fourth amendment to the constitution, after which the speaker replaced the chief Justice as the official administering the president鈥檚 oath.
He said that though this was briefly reversed after the fifth amendment, the 15th amendment reinstated the speaker鈥檚 role, once again sidelining the chief justice.
He argued that both Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Sheikh Hasina altered the constitution to consolidate power over state institutions, including the judiciary, executive, and legislature.
He contended that Sheikh Mujib changed the oath-taking provision through the fourth amendment, replacing the chief justice with the speaker.
Farouq said that Sheikh Hasina later reinforced this change through the 15th amendment.
He contended that these amendments were politically motivated, undermining the separation of powers and weakening the judiciary鈥檚 independence.
The move to restore the chief justice鈥檚 role in the oath-taking process follows a landmark High Court verdict on December 17, 2024, which declared key provisions of the 15th amendment unconstitutional. The verdict ruled that the amendment had undermined democracy, the will of the people, and judicial independence.
The December 17, 2024 High Court verdict refrained from ruling on several other changes introduced by the 15th amendment, leaving their validity to be determined by future parliaments.
The verdict struck down provisions that abolished the election-time non-party caretaker government system, and restricted amendments to certain articles of the constitution.
The 15th Amendment, passed in 2011 by the Awami League regime, faced legal challenges 13 years later, after the fall of the Sheikh Hasina regime amid an uprising on August 5, 2024.