Bangladesh Defense
Saif
Senior Member
- Jan 24, 2024
- 18,801
- 8,731
- Nation
- Residence
- Axis Group
Writ petition questions interim govt legality
A Supreme Court lawyer on Sunday filed a writ petition with the High Court asking the government to explain why it should not be directed to form an independent commission to investigate the alleged constitutional violations by the interim government, including...
www.newagebd.net
Writ petition questions interim govt legality
Probe into its actions also sought
Staff Correspondent 05 May, 2026, 00:14
A Supreme Court lawyer on Sunday filed a writ petition with the High Court asking the government to explain why it should not be directed to form an independent commission to investigate the alleged constitutional violations by the interim government, including the legality of the oath taken by the chief adviser and advisers.
The lawyer, Muhammad Mohsen Rashid, requested that the commission be given powers under the Commission of Inquiry Act.
The writ also asked for an inquiry into the 18-month actions committed by the interim government of Prof Muhammad Yunus.
The writ petition will be listed by the bench of Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Fatema Anwar for hearing on Sunday, according to lawyer Mohsen Rashid.
He also called for a scrutiny of the formation and the activities of the advisory council, alleging that it operated beyond any constitutional framework and exercised executive powers without lawful authority.
The lawyer further sought investigation into alleged abuses of power, financial irregularities, and tax-related complaints involving key figures of the interim government, including Prof Yunus.
He also questioned the legality and the national implications of a trade agreement signed with the United States, arguing that it might have been concluded without proper mandate.
He also urged the court to declare any actions found to be beyond constitutional authority as illegal and void.
The lawyer alleged that the so-called interim government engaged in serious violations of the constitution of Bangladesh. Countryspecific content
He argued that the interim government chief adviser had taken the oath meant for the prime minister under Article 148, despite not being constitutionally entitled to do so.
The advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 106 did not authorise such an oath, he said.
Following the abolition of the caretaker system as per the 15th Amendment to the constitution, there is no constitutional provision for appointing a chief adviser or advisers or prescribing their oath, the writ argued.
The oath thus taken by the chief adviser and other advisers was unconstitutional, the lawyer claimed.
He further stated that although past caretaker governments had limited status similar to the prime minister and ministers, the status did not grant them full executive authority.
The writ petition accused chief adviser Yunus of exercising powers beyond constitutional limits, effectively acting as head of a government, though not elected.
According to Mohsen Rashid, this amounted to an unconstitutional assumption of the executive power, violating the principle that authority must come from elected representatives.
The formation of an ‘advisory council’ was described by the writ as an extra-constitutional body functioning like a cabinet without a legal basis.
The lawyer also raised concerns about possible foreign influence and questioned the legitimacy of certain international engagements, including the participation in foreign events prior to assuming office.
He claimed that the president had remained the only constitutionally valid executive authority in the absence of an elected government, adding that the interim administration failed to comply with constitutional obligations to keep the president informed.
The chief adviser was also accused of making multiple foreign visits without proper accountability or transparency.
The lawyer challenged a trade agreement signed with the United States shortly before the February 12 elections, arguing that it may be unconstitutional, contrary to national interest, and potentially void under international law principles.
Additionally, the lawyer called for an investigation into alleged financial irregularities, including the withdrawal of legal cases, tax-related actions, and business advantages obtained by the chief adviser and his affiliated entities.
He argued that such actions undermined the rule of law and accountability.
Probe into its actions also sought
Staff Correspondent 05 May, 2026, 00:14
A Supreme Court lawyer on Sunday filed a writ petition with the High Court asking the government to explain why it should not be directed to form an independent commission to investigate the alleged constitutional violations by the interim government, including the legality of the oath taken by the chief adviser and advisers.
The lawyer, Muhammad Mohsen Rashid, requested that the commission be given powers under the Commission of Inquiry Act.
The writ also asked for an inquiry into the 18-month actions committed by the interim government of Prof Muhammad Yunus.
The writ petition will be listed by the bench of Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Fatema Anwar for hearing on Sunday, according to lawyer Mohsen Rashid.
He also called for a scrutiny of the formation and the activities of the advisory council, alleging that it operated beyond any constitutional framework and exercised executive powers without lawful authority.
The lawyer further sought investigation into alleged abuses of power, financial irregularities, and tax-related complaints involving key figures of the interim government, including Prof Yunus.
He also questioned the legality and the national implications of a trade agreement signed with the United States, arguing that it might have been concluded without proper mandate.
He also urged the court to declare any actions found to be beyond constitutional authority as illegal and void.
The lawyer alleged that the so-called interim government engaged in serious violations of the constitution of Bangladesh. Countryspecific content
He argued that the interim government chief adviser had taken the oath meant for the prime minister under Article 148, despite not being constitutionally entitled to do so.
The advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 106 did not authorise such an oath, he said.
Following the abolition of the caretaker system as per the 15th Amendment to the constitution, there is no constitutional provision for appointing a chief adviser or advisers or prescribing their oath, the writ argued.
The oath thus taken by the chief adviser and other advisers was unconstitutional, the lawyer claimed.
He further stated that although past caretaker governments had limited status similar to the prime minister and ministers, the status did not grant them full executive authority.
The writ petition accused chief adviser Yunus of exercising powers beyond constitutional limits, effectively acting as head of a government, though not elected.
According to Mohsen Rashid, this amounted to an unconstitutional assumption of the executive power, violating the principle that authority must come from elected representatives.
The formation of an ‘advisory council’ was described by the writ as an extra-constitutional body functioning like a cabinet without a legal basis.
The lawyer also raised concerns about possible foreign influence and questioned the legitimacy of certain international engagements, including the participation in foreign events prior to assuming office.
He claimed that the president had remained the only constitutionally valid executive authority in the absence of an elected government, adding that the interim administration failed to comply with constitutional obligations to keep the president informed.
The chief adviser was also accused of making multiple foreign visits without proper accountability or transparency.
The lawyer challenged a trade agreement signed with the United States shortly before the February 12 elections, arguing that it may be unconstitutional, contrary to national interest, and potentially void under international law principles.
Additionally, the lawyer called for an investigation into alleged financial irregularities, including the withdrawal of legal cases, tax-related actions, and business advantages obtained by the chief adviser and his affiliated entities.
He argued that such actions undermined the rule of law and accountability.
