TDS Desk:

The High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the swearing-in of the interim government, which was based on the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 106 of the Constitution.

During the hearing, the court observed: “The people of Bangladesh have accepted the interim government as legitimate; therefore, there can be no controversy over this matter.”

On Monday, the High Court bench of Justice Fatema Najib and Justice Sikder Mahmudur Razi issued this observation while dismissing the writ.

Senior advocate Mohsin Rashid represented the petitioner in court. The petitioner’s lawyer has stated that they will appeal this order in a higher court.

Earlier, the petitioner, a lawyer, filed the writ challenging the swearing-in of the interim government based on the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 106 of the Constitution.

On August 8 last year, before forming the interim government led by Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus, the Supreme Court’s Appellate Division was consulted for its opinion.

On that day, the then-Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan and seven other Appellate Division judges provided their opinion in favour of forming the interim government through a special reference.

Following the Supreme Court’s opinion and legal validation, the president administered the oath to the interim government.

In their special reference, the seven judges of the Appellate Division stated that, given the prevailing situation in the country—where the prime minister had resigned, and the president dissolved the 12th National Parliament on August 6, 2024—it was not feasible for the President to act on the Prime Minister’s advice under Article 48(3) of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

The reference further noted that, to address the constitutional void in the existing situation, the Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs had sought the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 106 of the Constitution through a letter (No. 10.00.0000.127.99.007.20.475) dated August 8, 2024.

Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman was heard in this matter.

In this context, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, exercising its advisory jurisdiction under Article 106 of the Constitution, opined that, in the absence of specific provisions in the Constitution for forming an interim government, the president could, as an emergency measure, appoint a chief adviser and other advisers to carry out the executive functions of the state.

The president could also administer oaths to the chief adviser and other advisers thus appointed.