Is the 180-day timeframe for constitutional reform legally binding?
The 180 working days mentioned in the presidential order is not a binding deadline, but rather the tenure of the Constitutional Council, according to a member of the constitution reform commission.
"Within this period, the council will complete its work on amending, altering, or adding to the Constitution," he told The Business Standard this evening (13 November), on condition of anonymity.
"In other words, it defines the scope of their mandate, not a penal or enforceable obligation."
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
He added that since the process will be formed through a referendum approved by the people, it will create both a moral and legal responsibility, politically and judicially.
On the proposed upper house, he said, "The proposed 100 seats in the upper house will be allocated through a Proportional Representation (PR) system. That means, parties will receive seats in proportion to the votes they secure. This will establish an 'oversight balance' to ensure equilibrium in parliamentary politics."
He explained that the idea was first proposed by the BNP, aiming to create a mature mechanism of executive oversight.
"The Constitutional Reform Commission later adopted this idea and incorporated it into the referendum," he added.
Commenting on the legal foundation of the order, the constitution expert said, "Although the President did not cite any specific article while issuing the order, he derived its legitimacy from the 'expression of the people's supreme will' stated in the preamble of the Constitution. This is the fundamental basis of any democratic state, the manifestation of the people's sovereign power."
He further said, "The state precedes the law; and the Constitution itself is a political charter. It should not be viewed merely as a legal document, but as a collective political covenant of the people. The President's action reflects that very covenant."
