High Court Issues Rule on Legality of July National Charter and Referendum
On Tuesday, March 3, 2026, a double bench comprising Justice Razik-Al-Jalil and Justice Md. Anwarul Islam Shaheen delivered the order following several writ petitions that challenged the constitutionality of the reform framework. The court has directed the Cabinet Secretary, Law Secretary, and the Chief Election Commissioner, among others, to respond to the rule, explaining why the charter and its associated ordinance should not be declared illegal and void.
The legal challenges were filed by Supreme Court lawyers including Dr. Yunus Ali Akhand, Choudhury Redwan-E-Khoda Roni, and Gazi Md. Mahbub Alam. The petitioners argue that the July National Charter—a politically negotiated document signed on October 17, 2025—conflicts with several fundamental articles of the Constitution, specifically Articles 31, 65, and 123. They contend that the national referendum held on February 12, 2026, lacked a proper constitutional basis and that the mandate given to the newly elected parliament to act as a "Constituent Assembly" bypasses established legislative procedures.
Significance of the High Court Rule: The "July National Charter" was established as a post-uprising blueprint for state reform, proposing 30 major changes, including a bicameral parliament, term limits for the Prime Minister, and the reinstatement of the Caretaker Government system. While the referendum saw approximately 68% of voters supporting the charter, the High Court's intervention creates a period of significant legal uncertainty. If the court eventually finds the charter unconstitutional, it could jeopardize the planned transition where the 13th Parliament is tasked with embedding these reforms into the Constitution within 180 days.
Despite this legal friction, the transition to a new government continues. The 13th National Parliamentary Election, held alongside the referendum, resulted in a victory for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which secured 209 seats. As the government prepares for the first session of the new parliament, the response to this High Court rule will be critical in determining whether the reform process remains on track or requires a more formal constitutional amendment process through a two-thirds majority rather than a referendum-based mandate.
