The High Court on Tuesday issued a rule asking why the July National Charter and the Referendum Ordinance should not be declared illegal and beyond the authority of the constitution.
The bench of Justice Razik-Al-Jalil and Justice Md Anwarul Islam Shaheen passed the order following writ petitions challenging the validity of the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order, as well as Section 3 and the Schedule of the Referendum Ordinance.
The court asked the respondents to explain why the provisions in question should not be declared unconstitutional.
Senior lawyers Ahsanul Karim and Syed Mamun Mahbub, Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua and Gazi Kamrul Islam, among others, appeared for the writ petitioners. Senior lawyer Mohammad Hossain represented the National Citizens Party (NCP), while senior lawyer Mohammad Shishir Monir appeared for Jamaat-e-Islami. Acting Attorney General Mohammad Arshadur Rouf and Additional Attorney General Anik R Haque represented the state.
Earlier, on February 23, Supreme Court lawyer Chowdhury Md Redwan-e-Khoda filed a writ petition challenging the legality of the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order and Section 3 and the Schedule of the Referendum Ordinance.
Last week, another writ petition was filed by Supreme Court lawyer Gazi Md Mahbub Alam, challenging the validity of the same implementation order and a February 16 letter regarding the oath of members of the Constitutional Reform Council formed under it.
In his petition, Redwan-e-Khoda sought a rule asking why the implementation order and the relevant provisions of the Referendum Ordinance should not be declared unconstitutional for being inconsistent with the constitution. He also sought an interim order to stay the operation of Section 3 and the Schedule of the ordinance pending disposal of the rule.
Mahbub Alam, in his petition, sought a rule questioning why the implementation order and the February 16 letter administering oath to members of the Constitutional Reform Council should not be declared null and void for being contrary to the constitution. He further sought a stay on the operation of the implementation order and the oath letter until the matter is resolved.
