High Court Verdict Upheld: Referendum and Caretaker Government System Restored to Bangladesh Constitution

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has upheld a landmark High Court judgment declaring several provisions of the 15th Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional, including the abolition of the caretaker government system. Legal experts say the verdict effectively restores both the caretaker government system and the constitutional provision for referendums.

The four-member Appellate Bench, led by the Chief Justice, delivered the ruling on Thursday morning, dismissing the appeal filed against the High Court’s decision.

Attorney General Barrister Md. Ruhul Quddus Kajol represented the state, while Dr. Sharif Bhuiyan appeared for the petitioners. Advocate Mohammad Shishir Monir represented Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, which had joined the proceedings as a party.

Following the verdict, both Dr. Sharif Bhuiyan and Advocate Mohammad Shishir Monir described the ruling as “historic.”

Background

The case stems from a High Court judgment delivered on December 17, 2024, which declared several provisions of the 15th Amendment unconstitutional. The High Court ruled that abolishing the caretaker government system and removing the referendum provision from the Constitution violated its fundamental structure.

Although the court did not invalidate the entire 15th Amendment, it struck down key provisions, including:

• The abolition of the caretaker government system.
• The removal of the constitutional provision for referendums under Article 142.
• Articles 7A, 7B, and 44(2) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court had granted leave to appeal against the High Court’s ruling on November 13, 2025, before finally dismissing the appeal in its latest judgment.

Court’s Observations

In its observations, the High Court stated that democracy forms part of the Constitution’s basic structure and can only flourish through free, fair, impartial, and credible elections.

The court noted that the previous three parliamentary elections held under partisan governments failed to reflect the genuine will of the people, resulting in a loss of public confidence in elections conducted under such administrations. According to the judgment, this erosion of trust ultimately contributed to the July mass uprising.

The court further held that the caretaker government system had originally been incorporated into the Constitution in accordance with the people’s aspirations and had since become part of its basic constitutional framework.

Referendum Provision Restored

The High Court also ruled that the repeal of the referendum provision through Section 47 of the 15th Amendment was inconsistent with the Constitution’s basic structure.

As a result, Article 142, as it existed following the 12th Amendment, has been reinstated, restoring the constitutional requirement for referendums in specified circumstances.

Partial Invalidation of the 15th Amendment

The court clarified that the entire 15th Amendment has not been struck down. Instead, Parliament will have the authority to review, amend, or retain the remaining provisions through future legislative action, taking into account the views of the people.

These remaining provisions include, among others, those relating to the constitutional recognition of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the Father of the Nation and references to the historic March 26 declaration.

Case History

The legal challenge was initiated by Dr. Badiul Alam Majumdar, Secretary of Shujan (Citizens for Good Governance), along with other petitioners. During the proceedings, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, Jamaat-e-Islami Secretary General Mia Golam Parwar, Gono Forum, Insaniyat Biplob, and four individual citizens, including Barrister Shyikh Mahdi joined the case as intervenors.

The 15th Constitutional Amendment, passed by Parliament on June 30, 2011, abolished the caretaker government system, recognized Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the Father of the Nation, increased the number of reserved seats for women in Parliament from 45 to 50, and introduced several other constitutional changes.