The High Court delivered a landmark verdict on Tuesday (17 December) declaring the 15th Amendment to the Constitution of Bangladesh—an edifice that once stood as a testament to the nation's political evolution—null and void.
This judicial pronouncement has sent ripples through the political and legal landscapes, compelling a reevaluation of the very architecture of governance in Bangladesh.
Enacted on 30 June 2011, the 15th Amendment was a multifaceted reform that sought to recalibrate the constitutional framework of Bangladesh.
Among its provisions, it abolished the caretaker government system—a mechanism designed to ensure impartiality during elections—and increased the number of reserved seats for women in Parliament from 45 to 50.
Additionally, it criminalised the unconstitutional seizure of state power, constitutionally recogniSed Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the Father of the Nation, and restored secularism and religious freedom as state principles.
The amendment also altered the election timeline, stipulating that elections be held within the 90 days preceding the end of Parliament's term, rather than within 90 days after its expiry.
A Constitutional Reversal
The High Court's decision to declare the 15th amendment illegal is a profound judicial intervention that challenges the constitutional status quo.
This ruling not only annuls the abolition of the caretaker government system but also calls into question the legitimacy of the increased representation for women in parliament and the redefined electoral timelines.
The court's verdict underscores the dynamic and evolving nature of constitutional law, where even entrenched provisions are subject to scrutiny and reinterpretation.
An immediate consequence of the ruling is the reinstatement of the caretaker government system.
This mechanism, designed to oversee elections impartially, will once again become a cornerstone of Bangladesh's electoral process, potentially restoring public confidence in the electoral system's fairness.
Annulment of the provision increasing reserved seats for women in Parliament from 45 to 50 may necessitate a reevaluation of gender representation strategies.
This development could prompt legislative bodies to explore alternative avenues to enhance women's participation in governance.
Alteration of the election timeline, which previously mandated elections within the 90 days preceding the end of parliament's term, may revert to the original provision requiring elections within 90 days after the term's expiry.
This shift could influence the political calendar and the strategic planning of political parties.
Politically, the ruling may embolden opposition parties that have long contested the 15th amendment.
It could lead to a recalibration of political alliances and strategies, as parties reassess their positions in light of the court's decision.
Legally, the verdict sets a significant precedent regarding the judiciary's role in constitutional interpretation.
It reinforces the principle that constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review, thereby fortifying the checks and balances inherent in the democratic framework.
