The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed appeals against the High Court verdict on the Constitution's 15th Amendment, leaving intact the High Court ruling that restored the constitutional provisions for a caretaker government and referendums.
The verdict was delivered by a four-member Appellate Division bench headed by Chief Justice Md Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury.
Three separate appeals had been filed against the High Court judgment.
One appeal was filed by four individuals, including SHUJAN (Citizens for Good Governance) Secretary Badiul Alam Majumdar. Another was filed by Naogaon resident Md Mofazzal Hossain, while Jamaat-e-Islami Secretary General Mia Golam Parwar submitted a third.
On December 11, 2025, a six-member Appellate Division bench led by then chief justice Dr Syed Refaat Ahmed had deferred the hearing until after the 13th parliamentary election.
At that hearing, the petitioners were represented by Advocate Dr Sharif Bhuiyan. Barrister Sara Hossain, Barrister Ruhul Quddus Kajal, Advocate Mohammad Shishir Monir and Barrister SM Shahriar Kabir appeared as intervenors, while then Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman represented the state.
During a hearing on December 8, Dr Sharif Bhuiyan, appearing for Badiul Alam Majumdar, argued that the entire 15th Amendment should be struck down. At one stage, the chief justice observed that if the amendment suffered from procedural defects, it could potentially be declared void in its entirety.
On December 2, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir was also added as a party to the appeal against the High Court judgment.
High Court verdict
On December 17, 2024, the High Court declared several provisions of the 15th Amendment unconstitutional, including those abolishing the caretaker government system, and restored the constitutional provision for referendums.
In its observations, the court said democracy forms part of the Constitution's basic structure and can only flourish through free, fair, impartial and credible elections.
It noted that the previous three parliamentary elections held under partisan governments had failed to reflect the will of the people, eroding public confidence in elections under political administrations and ultimately contributing to the July mass uprising.
The court further observed that the caretaker government system had been incorporated into the Constitution in line with public aspirations and had become part of its basic structure.
The High Court declared Sections 20 and 21 of the Constitution (15th Amendment) Act, which abolished the caretaker government system, unconstitutional, saying they were inconsistent with the Constitution's basic structure by undermining democracy.
It also struck down Articles 7A, 7B and 44(2), which had been inserted through the amendment, as being inconsistent with the Constitution.
The 15th Amendment had introduced additions, revisions and substitutions to 54 constitutional provisions.
However, the court stopped short of invalidating the entire amendment, leaving it to the next parliament to decide the fate of the remaining provisions. It said parliament could amend or revise those provisions in accordance with the law after consulting the people, including issues relating to the recognition of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the Father of the Nation and the March 26 speech.
Regarding referendums, the High Court held that Section 47 of the 15th Amendment, which repealed the referendum provision under Article 142 of the Constitution, was inconsistent with the Constitution's basic structure.
As a result, the referendum provision introduced through the 12th Amendment was restored.
The court also invalidated Articles 7A, 7B and 44(2). Article 7A dealt with offences relating to the suspension or abrogation of the Constitution, while Article 7B made certain constitutional provisions unamendable. Article 44(2), concerning the enforcement of fundamental rights, empowered parliament to vest other courts with powers similar to those of the High Court within defined territorial limits. The court declared that provision void.
The High Court published the full 139-page judgment on July 8 after it was signed by Justices Farah Mahbub and Debashish Roy Chowdhury.
On November 3, Badiul Alam Majumdar, through his lawyer Dr Sharif Bhuiyan, filed a petition seeking leave to appeal against the High Court verdict, asking that the entire 15th Amendment be declared unconstitutional.
Subsequently, on November 13, the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal the High Court judgment, paving the way for Thursday's verdict dismissing the appeals.
