An appeal has been filed challenging the High Court verdict that declared several provisions of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, including the abolition of the caretaker government system, illegal.

The appeal was lodged on Monday by Dr. Sharif Bhuiyan, lawyer for Dr. Badiul Alam Majumdar, secretary of the civil society platform Shujan. The petition seeks to have the entire 15th Amendment annulled.

On December 17 last year, the High Court declared certain provisions of the 15th Amendment, including the abolition of the caretaker government, unconstitutional. The court also reinstated the provision for holding referendums in the Constitution. However, the court did not strike down the amendment in its entirety.

In its observation, the court said democracy is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and it flourishes through free, fair, and impartial elections. The court noted that the last three parliamentary elections under partisan governments did not reflect the people’s will, and that the public had lost confidence in the possibility of fair elections under a party-led administration, leading to the July mass uprising.

The verdict stated that the caretaker government system was incorporated into the Constitution reflecting the people’s aspirations and had become part of its basic structure.

The judgment was delivered by the High Court bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debashish Roy Chowdhury. The court declared Articles 20 and 21 of the 15th Amendment, which abolished the caretaker government system, to be inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore void.

However, the court said the rest of the provisions of the amendment would remain in force. The National Parliament may, in accordance with law and public opinion, review, amend, or modify those provisions– including those relating to the recognition of the Father of the Nation and the March 26 speech.

Regarding the referendum issue, the High Court declared the repeal of the referendum provision under Article 142 of the Constitution unconstitutional. As a result, the court reinstated Article 142 as it stood under the 12th Amendment.

The court also struck down Articles 7A, 7B, and 44(2). Article 7A criminalized the abrogation or suspension of the Constitution, while Article 7B made certain basic provisions of the Constitution unamendable.

Article 44 deals with the enforcement of fundamental rights. Clause (2) of this Article allowed Parliament to empower other courts with similar jurisdiction to enforce such rights within their territorial limits–a provision the court has now invalidated.