Legal experts have underscored two crucial steps before the restoration of the caretaker government system can be considered: the resolution of the review petition regarding the 13th Amendment judgment in the Appellate Division, and the publication of the High Court's full verdict.
These developments are expected to resolve lingering questions surrounding the caretaker system.
Following the High Court's ruling on Tuesday, legal representatives affirmed that the caretaker government system is not poised for an immediate return. They stated that the review petition concerning the 13th Amendment judgment must first be concluded.
Meanwhile, the Attorney General Asaduzzaman remarked that the interim government preceding the upcoming elections could transform into a caretaker government without any constitutional impediments.
The debate over election governance has been a contentious issue in Bangladesh since the fall of the autocratic regime of Ershad in the 1990s.
Despite periodic street protests, political parties have failed to reach a permanent solution.
However, the fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth parliamentary elections were conducted under non-partisan caretaker governments, earning domestic and international credibility.
This system was abolished in 2011 through the 15th Amendment under the Awami League government.
Senior Supreme Court advocate Manzill Morshed told Bangladesh Pratidin that part of the 15th Amendment has been declared unconstitutional by the court.
Once the full judgment is released, its implementation mechanism will become clearer.
Additionally, the judgment on the 13th Amendment case is pending a hearing in the Appellate Division.
Until these judgments are available, further clarity remains elusive.
Another Supreme Court lawyer, Ahsanul Karim, noted that the High Court has declared the abolition of the caretaker system unconstitutional, suggesting its automatic reinstatement in the Constitution.
He compared this situation to the Supreme Judicial Council's revival following an Appellate Division ruling.
Following the High Court's ruling, petitioner counsel Dr Sharif Bhuiyan stated that a significant hurdle to reinstating the caretaker government system has been removed.
However, he cautioned that its immediate return is premature, given that its abolition was achieved through both a Supreme Court verdict and a constitutional amendment by parliament.
The review petition in the Appellate Division, scheduled for hearing in the third week of January, must be resolved in the petitioners' favour before the caretaker system can be reinstated and operationalised.
