A legal challenge was initiated in the High Court today against the legality of the July National Charter 2025, a comprehensive reform plan presented by the now-dissolved interim government led by Muhammad Yunus.
Advocate Md Eunus Ali Akond, a Supreme Court lawyer, filed the petition as a public interest litigation, requesting a suspension of the charter and an explanation from authorities on why it should not be deemed illegal and unconstitutional.
Akond highlighted that the constitution does not provide for such a charter, particularly objecting to its suggestions for a referendum and the establishment of a 100-member upper house in parliament. He emphasized the need for the charter to be declared illegal and unconstitutional.
The High Court may schedule a hearing on the petition for the upcoming week, as confirmed by Akond.
The July National Charter 2025, a significant reform agenda unveiled by the interim government after the mass uprising in July–August 2024, aims to prevent a resurgence of authoritarian rule. Endorsed by over 20 political parties on October 17 last year, the charter proposes 84 reforms, including 47 necessitating constitutional amendments.
Key provisions of the charter include imposing a 10-year limit on a prime minister’s term and granting increased authority to the president, in line with the broader objective of establishing a “Second Republic.” It also addresses enhancing judicial autonomy, electoral system reform, bolstering women’s representation, and fortifying fundamental rights protection.
The reforms were subject to a referendum held concurrently with parliamentary elections on February 12, with the majority voting “Yes” at a turnout of 60.26%.
Another Supreme Court lawyer filed a writ petition yesterday challenging the legality of the February 12 referendum and seeking annulment of the subsequent results. Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami lawyer Mohammad Shishir Manir expressed plans to contest both petitions during the court hearings, labeling them as baseless.
Manir argued that the July charter and referendum stemmed from the July revolution, which he deemed beyond the scope of judicial review. He contended that such matters are best left to the judgment of the people, thus asserting the petitions should be summarily dismissed.
