Final hearing on 15th amendment deferred until 5 March after election

The Appellate Division has deferred until 5 March, after the 13th national election, the final hearing on the appeal challenging several provisions of the 15th amendment to the Constitution, including the abolition of the caretaker government system.

A six-member bench headed by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed issued the order today (11 December). The appeal seeks complete annulment of the amendment.

During today's proceedings, Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman, representing the state, told the court that some provisions of the amendment should remain, while others may be left to the next parliament to decide.

Then, the chief justice asked him about the position of Jamaat-e-Islami's lawyer, who earlier argued that the hearing should be left to the next parliament.

The attorney general responded that the state wanted the hearing concluded and a verdict delivered by the Appellate Division.

The chief justice, however, observed that the court did not want to deliver a judgment similar to past rulings that later raised questions, and noted that a new Appellate Division bench would be formed soon. "A longer adjournment might benefit all parties."

The attorney general reiterated the state's readiness to complete it today, but the bench ultimately decided to defer it.

The 15th amendment, passed on 30 June 2011, brought changes to 54 provisions of the Constitution, including the scrapping of the caretaker government system.

Following the July Uprising, two separate writs were filed last year challenging the legality of the entire amendment and several of its sections.

The High Court delivered its verdict on 17 December last year, striking down Sections 20 and 21 of the amendment – which abolished the caretaker system – for being inconsistent with the Constitution.

It also declared the newly added Articles 7A, 7B and 44(2) unconstitutional. The provision for referendums under Article 142, removed by the 12th amendment, was reinstated.

However, the court did not strike down the amendment entirely, saying the next parliament may decide on the remaining provisions.