By Mir Lutful Kabir Saadi
Dhaka: The High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has issued a rule asking the government to explain why the ‘July National Charter Implementation Order’ and the related Referendum Ordinance should not be declared illegal. The court also sought clarification on why the oath administered to members of the Constitutional Reform Council under the charter should not be deemed unlawful.
The rule was issued on March 3 by a bench comprising Justice Rajik Al Jalil and Justice Md. Anwarul Islam Shahin, amid intensifying constitutional debate surrounding the government-backed July Charter initiative.
The court directed the Cabinet Secretary, the Law Secretary, the National Consensus Commission, the Chief Election Commissioner, and other relevant authorities to respond within four weeks.
At the heart of the legal challenge lies a fundamental constitutional question: whether the executive branch can lawfully operationalise a sweeping ‘national charter’ and initiate structural constitutional reform through executive orders and ordinances, potentially bypassing established parliamentary mechanisms.
The petitioners argue that the July National Charter, along with its implementation order and referendum framework, may conflict with the existing constitutional structure. They further contend that the oath administered to members of the Constitutional Reform Council lacks a valid constitutional basis.
Senior Advocate Ahsanul Karim and Advocate Syed Mamun Mahbub represented the petitioners. The government’s position was defended by Senior Advocate Mohammad Hossain Lipu, Barrister Imran Abdullah Siddiqui, and Advocate Mohammad Shishir Monir, among others.
Separate writ petitions were filed earlier this week challenging the legality of the July National Charter Implementation Order, the Referendum Ordinance, and the oath taken by members of the Constitutional Reform Council.
Additionally, another writ petition filed on February 18 sought the cancellation of the July National Charter altogether, arguing that it is inconsistent with the Constitution and requesting suspension of its operation.
In a related development, the same High Court bench concluded hearings on March 2 on a petition seeking suspension of the implementation order. The court is expected to deliver its order imminently.
In that proceeding, the state was represented by Acting Attorney General Arshadur Rouf and Additional Attorney General Aneek R. Haque. Petitioners were again represented by Senior Advocate Ahsanul Karim and Advocate Syed Mamun Mahbub.
Another petition, filed by Advocate ABM Ataul Majid Touhid, challenges the legality of a referendum held on February 13 and seeks annulment of its results. That matter remains pending.
Though details of the July National Charter’s full contents remain politically contested, it is widely understood to encompass proposals for broad constitutional restructuring. The formation of a Constitutional Reform Council and the holding of a referendum suggest an attempt to secure direct public legitimacy for institutional change.
Legal analysts observe that the case could shape the boundaries between executive initiative and constitutional amendment procedures in Bangladesh. The Constitution of Bangladesh prescribes a structured parliamentary process for amendments. Any attempt to alter foundational provisions through executive mechanisms or ordinances may trigger judicial scrutiny under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy.
If the High Court ultimately declares the implementation order or referendum process unlawful, it could significantly stall or invalidate the reform agenda. Conversely, if upheld, the decision may expand executive flexibility in initiating constitutional transformation.
The litigation unfolds against a broader backdrop of political polarisation and debates over governance reform ahead of upcoming national elections. The judiciary’s intervention places the constitutional process itself at the centre of national discourse.
For now, the High Court’s rule does not invalidate the charter. It merely requires the government to justify its actions. Yet in constitutional politics, such judicial questions often mark the beginning of a defining institutional moment. As Bangladesh navigates this legal and political crossroads, the coming weeks may determine whether the July National Charter becomes a vehicle for reform or a constitutional flashpoint.
