Bangladesh’s new parliament began its first session under the weight of a dispute that goes to the core of the country’s post-uprising political transition — whether lawmakers should simultaneously serve as members of a Constitutional Reform Council tasked with rewriting parts of the constitution.
This disagreement has quickly become the first major institutional conflict between the treasury bench led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and opposition lawmakers, primarily from Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami and the National Citizen Party (NCP).
The controversy originates from the July National Charter, a political document produced during the transitional period following the 2024 uprising that ended Sheikh Hasina’s long rule. The charter was later endorsed through a referendum held alongside the parliamentary election earlier this year.
It contains dozens of institutional reform proposals, including changes to the balance of power within the executive and the creation of additional constitutional bodies. According to the reform blueprint, 48 of those proposals require direct constitutional amendments.
To implement those changes, the charter’s implementation order proposed creating a Constitutional Reform Council composed of the same members elected to the 13th parliament.
Under the arrangement, lawmakers would assume two roles: one as MPs in the legislature and another as members of the reform council responsible for drafting constitutional amendments within a fixed period.
The conflict emerged when the new parliament was sworn in. Opposition lawmakers from Jamaat and the NCP took two oaths—one as members of parliament and another as members of the reform council. BNP lawmakers, who control a large majority of seats, took only the constitutional oath required for MPs and declined the second. Without their participation, the council cannot function.
The BNP’s refusal is based primarily on constitutional procedure. Bangladesh’s constitution sets out a detailed framework governing both the authority of parliament and the process for constitutional amendment. Article 65 establishes parliament as the “supreme legislative body” of the republic and vests law-making power exclusively in it.
The same article implicitly defines the role of MPs: they legislate within parliament rather than serve in parallel constitutional bodies unless those bodies are created by law.
More directly relevant to the dispute is Article 142, which governs how the constitution itself may be amended. The provision requires that any constitutional amendment be introduced as a bill in parliament and passed by a two-thirds majority of MPs before receiving presidential assent.
The logic behind this clause is to ensure that constitutional change occurs through a clear legislative process rather than through executive orders or political agreements outside the constitution.
Differing viewpoints
Leaders from the Treasury bench argue that the proposed reform council bypasses that procedure. In their reading, the constitution recognizes only two pathways to constitutional authority: institutions explicitly created by the constitution itself or bodies established through legislation passed by parliament.
Because the constitution does not mention a reform council and no law has been passed to create one, BNP leaders argue that MPs cannot legally serve on such a body.
Another issue concerns the oath itself. The oath taken by MPs is prescribed in the Third Schedule of the constitution. It requires lawmakers to swear allegiance to the constitution and to faithfully discharge their duties as members of parliament. Constitutional lawyers note that the schedule does not include any oath relating to a reform council.
For the government, this means that asking MPs to take a second oath tied to an extra-constitutional institution raises questions about legality.
The BNP also argues that parliament already possesses the authority needed to carry out the reforms promised in the July Charter. With its current parliamentary majority, the party can introduce constitutional amendment bills under Article 142 and debate them through the existing legislative process. From the government’s perspective, creating a separate council is unnecessary and risks introducing legal ambiguity into constitutional reform.
Opposition parties frame the issue differently. Jamaat-e-Islami and the NCP argue that the referendum approving the July Charter created a political mandate for a reform process that extends beyond ordinary legislative amendments.
In their interpretation, the council was designed to serve as a temporary constitutional forum that would examine reforms collectively before formal amendment bills were introduced in parliament.
They also point to the scale of the proposed reforms. Some provisions in the charter—such as redistributing executive powers, altering the structure of parliament and creating new constitutional offices—could potentially affect what constitutional lawyers describe as the “basic structure” of the constitution.
Although Bangladesh’s constitution does not explicitly contain a basic-structure clause, the Supreme Court has recognized the doctrine in several landmark rulings. Under that doctrine, certain core features of the constitutional order cannot be altered in ways that undermine the republic’s fundamental character.
For some reform advocates, the council would provide a forum to debate those structural issues before they are translated into formal constitutional amendments. They argue that the charter anticipated this by requiring MPs to act both as legislators and as members of a reform council.
Competing interpretations
The dispute, therefore, reflects two competing interpretations of constitutional authority. The BNP emphasizes constitutional legality and procedural order. Its position is that reforms must follow the amendment process defined in Article 142 and that any institution involved in constitutional change must first be created through that process.
Jamaat and the NCP emphasize the political mandate generated by the referendum and the uprising that preceded it. They argue that the July Charter represents a binding political commitment and that refusing to implement the council undermines the reform agenda endorsed by voters.
This disagreement surfaced immediately in parliament. During the first sessions of the new legislature, MPs from both sides confronted each other over the issue, with opposition members accusing the government of abandoning reform commitments and the treasury bench insisting that constitutional procedures cannot be bypassed.
Jamaat leaders have gone further, framing the BNP’s refusal to take the reform council oath as a betrayal of what they call the “spirit of July”—a reference to the uprising that reshaped the country’s political landscape. In their view, the charter was the central outcome of that movement and ignoring it risks weakening the reform process.
The dispute has entered the courts. Legal petitions have been filed challenging the validity of the referendum process and the legality of the charter’s implementation order, including the requirement that MPs take the council oath.
The High Court has issued a rule seeking explanations on several aspects of the process, signaling that the judiciary may ultimately weigh in on the constitutional questions surrounding the council.
The outcome of this debate will determine how Bangladesh proceeds with its promised reforms. If the BNP’s interpretation prevails, the reform agenda will likely move forward through ordinary constitutional amendments introduced in parliament.
If opposition parties succeed in forcing the creation of the reform council, the process could take on a more hybrid character, combining parliamentary authority with a special reform body envisioned in the charter.
For now, the council exists only on paper. The clash between constitutional procedure and political commitment has left Bangladesh’s reform agenda suspended between the two, illustrating how difficult it can be to translate revolutionary promises into constitutional reality.
Faisal Mahmud is a journalist and analyst based in Dhaka