The short order in the 13th Amendment Review Judgment, authored by former Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, was delivered on November 20, 2025, while the full judgment became available on March 12, 2026. The most important line in the Appellate Division’s full review judgment is not the formal restoration of the caretaker government system, it is the court’s own admission that its 2011 judgment—declaring the amendment unconstitutional and void—embraced a rigid and utopian model of democracy that ended up enabling “authoritarianism and dysfunctional electoral politics” and pushing the country towards a crisis of legitimacy (pp 38 to 40).
That is the real takeaway. The review bench has not merely corrected doctrine; it has acknowledged, in judicial language, that constitutional formalism helped wreck electoral credibility in Bangladesh.
What the court has actually done is quite precise. It has set aside the 2011 Appellate Division judgment “in its entirety” and revived Chapter IIA of Part IV of the constitution, meaning the old constitutional provisions on the non-party caretaker government now stand restored (pp 64, 73 to 74). But the court also insists that the revived provisions can operate only prospectively, because Articles 58B(1) and 58C(2) are triggered only after the dissolution of a sitting parliament and within 15 days of that dissolution (pp 62 to 64, 73 to 74). That is why the judgment says the restored provisions will lie dormant for the current cycle and can be invoked, at the earliest, “under the domain of the 13th Parliament” (p 63). That point matters now because the 13th parliament has already begun its first session.
The court’s treatment of the caretaker system is therefore not nostalgic, even if its remedy is old. It does not say caretaker government is ideal in the abstract. It says democracy cannot be protected by clinging to the ritual that every temporary officeholder must be elected, while ignoring whether elections themselves are credible. The judgment ties democracy to free and fair elections, and then ties those elections to institutional safeguards that can neutralise the advantage of incumbency. It is, in effect, a rejection of the fiction that partisan control of the election time state is a sign of democratic maturity in a deeply distrustful polity. In Bangladesh, the court now says plainly that a fiction became the vehicle for democratic decay.
This is why the implications for the 15th Amendment appeals are so serious. Those appeals were previously adjourned to March 5 so that a new post-election bench could hear them. Whatever that bench now does, the review judgment has already shifted the ground beneath the case. Once the Supreme Court itself says the caretaker mechanism strengthened “the foundation of a substantive democratic architecture” (p 46), and once it treats electoral credibility as integral to democracy, the constitutional defence of the 15th Amendment’s repeal of caretaker government looks badly weakened. The blow becomes harsher when the court treats the gap between the 2011 short order and the full judgment as a fatal defect, and goes so far as to suggest that the 15th Amendment effectively preempted the judicial process and signalled to the court what outcome the political branches expected. That is not a minor institutional complaint; it is a judicial indictment of the constitutional sequence that abolished caretaker government in the first place.
Yet the review judgment is also more limited than many triumphalist readings suggest. It does not design a new caretaker model, tell parliament how to choose the chief adviser, or replace the old architecture with a modern one. The operative order simply revives Chapter IIA wholesale (pp 73 to 74). So the composition that now returns is not a freshly crafted judicial model; it is the old constitutional scheme by force of revival, not by force of new reasoning. To that extent, the court has restored a principle and a text, but not solved the design problem that helped destabilise the old system.
That distinction matters. The judgment records and in places appear to appreciate the argument that the principle of neutral election time administration may be constitutionally fundamental while the specific 1996 design remains open to legislative revision (pp 25 to 27, 41 to 42). This is one of the most important and under-noticeable features of the case. The court’s theory of democracy is far more forceful about the need for neutrality than about the sanctity of the retired chief justice-based appointment ladder. In other words, the judgment does not really constitutionalise every feature of the old caretaker model. It constitutionalises the need for a credible neutral safeguard.
That is where the present parliament enters. Since the 13th parliament has now begun its term, any amendment concerning the caretaker government belongs to this parliament, not to the courts and not to the expired transitional arrangement. Legally, parliament now has room to amend the revived framework before its own dissolution. Politically, however, it does not have a blank cheque. Any reform that narrows interim powers, removes retired judges from the centre of appointment politics, and gives the Election Commission a more operationally central role would be easier to defend under the logic of this judgment. Any attempt to gut neutrality and return the country to partisan election-time incumbency would collide head-on with the court’s reasoning on democracy, popular sovereignty, and electoral integrity (pp 44 to 58). The review judgment does not forbid reform. It forbids bad faith masquerading as reform. Additionally, in undertaking any constitutional reform on this issue, parliament is required to give proper consideration to the pertinent observations made by the court.
The judgment’s most ambitious move lies deeper still. The court distinguishes between parliament’s amendment power under Article 142 and the constituent power of the people (pp 44 to 46; 52 to 55), which is a striking innovation. It allows the court to describe the 13th Amendment as more than an ordinary textual change, as an expression of sovereign popular will in response to a crisis of electoral legitimacy. This may pave the way for future constitutional reform by giving a stronger conceptual footing to democratic guardrails that emerge from broad public consensus. But it also carries an obvious risk. In Bangladesh, every faction sooner or later claims to speak for “the people.” If constituent power becomes loose rhetoric rather than disciplined constitutional method, tomorrow’s constitutional adventurism will simply borrow today’s emancipatory language.
This is why the review judgment deserves thorough examination to appreciate its critical reasoning and analysis. It is right to reverse the 2011 disaster, to say that free and fair elections are not decorative to democracy but central to constitutional survival, to restore the legal possibility of a neutral election-time administration. But it also leaves parliament with the harder task, which courts are structurally reluctant to perform. The court has given no express direction to parliament to redesign the composition of the caretaker government. Its operative direction is narrower—restore Chapter IIA now, operate it later, and let the constitutional clock run from the life cycle of the current Parliament (pp 62 to 64, 73 to 74). With due respect, this does not fully reflect judicial statesmanship; rather, it may be more appropriately understood as a cautious judicial reopening.
What parliament does with that reopening will decide whether this verdict becomes a constitutional rescue or merely another chapter in Bangladesh’s long habit of using law to postpone politics.
Barrister Khan Khalid Adnan is advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, fellow at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and head of the chamber at Khan Saifur Rahman and Associates in Dhaka.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
