The High Court has observed that the interim government led by Dr. Yunus is supported by legal documents and formed by the will of the people of Bangladesh. In the full order rejecting a writ petition on Wednesday (February 12), the High Court bench, comprising Justice Fatema Najib and Justice Shikdar Mahmudur Razi, made this observation.
Following the fall of the Awami League government, the President sought the opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the formation of an interim government to govern the country under Article 106 of the Constitution. After receiving the opinion of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, an interim government was formed under the leadership of Dr. Muhammad Yunus. Subsequently, the members of the advisory council took their oaths.
A writ petition was filed by Supreme Court lawyer Mohsin Rashid challenging the process of sending a reference and seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the formation and oath-taking of the interim government. After a hearing, the High Court bench, consisting of Justice Fatema Najib and Justice Shikdar Mahmudur Razi, dismissed the writ on January 13. The full order rejecting the writ was published on Wednesday.
The full order of the High Court states that the current interim government is supported by legal documents, contrary to the petitioner (lawyer Mohammad Mohsin Rashid)’s claim. It is noted that, under unique circumstances, the President of Bangladesh sought advisory opinions in accordance with Article 106 of the Constitution. Based on the opinion, actions were taken. Therefore, the government is supported by legal documents and the will of the people of Bangladesh.
The full order further mentions, “The popular uprising of July-August 2024 is part of our history, and we hope it will be remembered with care by the people for many years to come.”
The writ was dismissed as it was based on a misconception, malice, and harassment.
Liberty News’ court correspondent reports that Article 106 of the Constitution addresses the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The article states that if at any time the President deems that a legal question has arisen or is likely to arise, which is of such nature and importance that it requires the opinion of the Supreme Court, the President may refer the question to the Appellate Division for consideration. After a hearing at its discretion, the division may provide its opinion to the President on the matter.
LND/SAKIB
