Past three elections did not reflect people's will: High Court
High Court publishes complete 17 Dec HC verdict that revived caretaker govt system
The last three national parliamentary elections held under party government did not reflect the will of the people, the High Court said in its observation of the complete 17 December verdict, which reinstated the caretaker government system.
"Democracy is part of the fundamental structure of our constitution. This democracy develops through free, fair, impartial and uninfluenced elections. However, the last three parliamentary elections under party government did not reflect the will of the people. The people did not develop confidence in fair elections under party government. As a result, the 2024 July mass uprising occurred," said the court.
The High Court said, "The caretaker government system was included in the constitution according to the will of the people, and it became part of the fundamental structure of the constitution."
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
The 139-page complete verdict, signed by Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debashish Roy Chowdhury, was published on the Supreme Court's website today (8 July).
The High Court announced a summary verdict on 17 December last year, declaring several provisions of the much-discussed 15th Constitutional Amendment illegal, including the cancellation of the caretaker government system.
The court simultaneously restored the referendum provision in the constitution through the verdict.
The High Court delivered this verdict, declaring Articles 20 and 21 of the 15th Amendment Act, concerning the abolition of the caretaker government system, to be conflicting and void.
In its verdict, the court said these two articles undermined the fundamental structure of the constitution, which is democracy. The court declared Articles 7A, 7B, and 44(2), as added to the constitution through the 15th Amendment, to be conflicting with the constitution and void.
The 15th Amendment brought additions, modifications, and replacements in 54 areas.
In the verdict, the court also said the entire 15th Amendment Act is not being cancelled. The court left the decision regarding the remaining provisions to the next national parliament.
The court said in its verdict that parliament can amend, modify, and change provisions by taking public opinion into account, in accordance with parliamentary law.
This includes matters regarding recognition of the Father of the Nation and issues related to the 26 March speech.
Regarding the referendum, the High Court said the referendum provision was abolished, which was part of Article 142 of the constitution. This was added in the 12th Amendment in 1991.
Section 47 of the 15th Amendment Act, concerning the abolition of the referendum provision in Article 142 of the constitution, was declared void for being inconsistent with the fundamental structure of the constitution.
As a result, Article 142 of the 12th Amendment was restored.
Articles 7A, 7B, and 44(2) were cancelled in the High Court verdict. Article 7A dealt with crimes such as abrogation and suspension of the constitution, and Article 7B made the fundamental provisions of the constitution unamendable.
Meanwhile, Article 44 deals with the enforcement of fundamental rights. Article 44(2) states that without prejudice to the powers of the High Court Division under Article 102 of this constitution, parliament may, by law, empower any other court to exercise all or any of those powers within the local limits of its jurisdiction.
This article has been declared void in the verdict.
