For all latest news, follow The Financial Express Google News channel.
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, UNB reports.
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 said the petitioners are not the aggrieved parties, which the legal standing requires to file a writ petition challenging the activities of the interim government.
The matter is related to the structure of the state. A writ petition on the same issue had previously been dismissed and the latest petition was rejected as it was filed for a second time on the same matter, he said, adding that the writ had been filed with political ill intent.
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Muhammad Muhsin Rashid had filed the writ petition with the HC on May 17, challenging the 18-month activities of the interim government.
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 said the Appellate Division also dismissed the petitioner’s leave-to-appeal petition filed against the relevant High Court order with observations.
Later, 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. Subsequently, the interim government, led by Yunus, was formed on August 8.
Before the formation of the government and the swearing-in of the advisers, the President sent a reference to the Supreme Court seeking its opinion under Article 106 of the Constitution.
In response to the President’s special reference, the seven-member Appellate Division, headed by then Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan, gave its opinion on August 8.
The apex court observed that in order to fill the constitutional vacuum of the state 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.