Caretaker govt: Appellate Division defers 13th amendment review hearing to 9 Feb
On 1 December last year, the court had fixed 19 December for the review hearing on the scrapping of the caretaker government system.
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has deferred the scheduled hearing of a review petition challenging the cancellation of the 13th amendment to the constitution, which introduced the caretaker government system, to 9 February.
A four-member bench led by Justice Md Ashfaqul Islam gave the order today (19 January) after senior lawyers Zainul Abedin and Md Ruhul Quddus Kajal on behalf of BNP sought a two-week deferment.
Earlier, on 1 December last year, the Appellate Division had fixed 19 December for the review hearing on the scrapping of the caretaker government system.
Lawyers Zainul, Sharaif Bhuiyan and Mohammad Shishir Manir represented the petition that day while Attorney General Md Asaduzzaman stood for the state.
On 16 October last year, BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam filed the review petition against the scrapping of the caretaker government system.
Earlier, another review petition was submitted to the apex court by Sushashoner Jonno Nagorik (Sujon) Secretary Badiul Alam Majumdar. Jamaat-e-Islami Secretary General Miah Golam Parwar also filed a petition regarding the same issue.
The court later decided to hear all the petitions together.
The 13th amendment of the constitution incorporating the caretaker government system was adopted by the parliament in 1996. Three lawyers led by M Salim Ullah filed a writ with the High Court challenging the legality of the amendment.
The Appellate Division on 10 May 2011 gave a judgment scrapping the 13th amendment.
Afterwards, the parliament on 30 June 2011 passed the 15th amendment upholding the annulment of the caretaker government system with some ratifications. A gazette notification was also published in this regard on 3 July that year.
Besides, a High Court bench on 17 December last year gave a judgment scrapping the 15th amendment mentioning that Sections 20 and 21 of the amendment were contrary to the constitution.