Dhaka: The High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition seeking an investigation into the 18-month activities of the immediate past interim government, led by Prof Dr Muhammad Yunus. The HC bench of Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Fatema Anwar passed the order after hearing the petition.
According to United News of Bangladesh, Advocate MK Rahman and Advocate Muhsin Rashid argued for the writ petitioner, while Attorney General Md Ruhul Quddus Kazal represented the state. The Attorney General stated that the petitioners do not qualify as the aggrieved parties required to file a writ petition challenging the activities of the interim government. He emphasized that the matter pertains to the structure of the state and highlighted that a previous writ petition on the same issue had been dismissed. The latest petition was rejected as it was filed with political ill intent for the second time on the same matter.
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Muhammad Muhsin Rashid filed the writ petition with the HC on May 17, challenging the activities of the interim government. The Cabinet, and Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs Secretary were made respondents to the rule. Earlier, another writ petition was filed with the High Court challenging the legality of the oath and the process of forming the interim government.
On December 4, 2024, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court upheld the High Court verdict declaring lawful the oath and the process of forming the interim government. Lawyers noted that the Appellate Division also dismissed the petitioner's leave-to-appeal petition filed against the relevant High Court order with observations. Subsequently, another writ petition was filed challenging the activities of the Chief Adviser of the interim government.
Following the fall of the Awami League government on August 5, 2024, the President dissolved Parliament on August 6 of the same year. The interim government, led by Yunus, was formed on August 8. Prior to the formation of the government and the swearing-in of the advisers, the President sought the Supreme Court's opinion under Article 106 of the Constitution. In response, the seven-member Appellate Division, headed by then Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan, provided its opinion on August 8. The apex court observed that to fill the constitutional vacuum in an emergency situation, the President could appoint the Chief Adviser and other advisers as an interim arrangement to carry out the executive functions of the state and could administer their oath.