SC sets July 16 for hearing on challenge to legality of Yunus-led interim govt

The Supreme Court today set July 16 for hearing a leave-to-appeal petition challenging a High Court verdict that upheld the formation and oath of the interim government, which was based on the court's opinion delivered in response to a presidential reference.

A bench of the Appellate Division, headed by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, fixed the date after petitioner Advocate Muhammad Mohsen Rashid prayed for an early hearing.

On January 13, the High Court summarily rejected a writ petition filed by Muhammad Mohsen Rashid, a Supreme Court lawyer, challenging the legitimacy of the interim government's formation and swearing-in based on the Supreme Court's advisory opinion.

In the full text of its verdict, the High Court observed that the interim government led by Prof Muhammad Yunus was backed by legal documents and formed in accordance with the people's will.

Responding to Rashid's argument that the interim government lacked legal basis and amounted to usurpation, the court said, "The president of Bangladesh, in a unique moment in the nation's history, sought an advisory opinion under Article 106 of the constitution and acted in accordance with that opinion."

The bench, comprising Justice Fatema Najib and Justice Sikder Mahmudur Razi, concluded, "It is therefore backed by a legal instrument as well as the will of the people of Bangladesh."

In the full text of the order, the High Court further stated, "The mass uprising that took place in July–August last year is now part of our history and, hopefully, will remain preserved in the public conscience for years to come. Accordingly, we are of the view that the writ petition is misconceived, malicious, and vexatious."

On February 25, Advocate Rashid filed a leave-to-appeal petition with the Appellate Division, challenging the High Court's decision.

In the petition, he cited five grounds, including the claim that no formal reference was sent by the president under Article 106 of the constitution, and no opinion was provided by the Appellate Division as of August 8.