A group of lawyers on Monday argued in the Appellate Division that the interim government legitimacy is rooted in 2024 July uprising, not the Supreme Court’s opinion.

They opposed Supreme Court lawyer Mohsen Rashid’s leave to appeal petition that challenged the legality of the Muhammad Yunus-led interim government on the grounds that it is based on the ‘illegal opinion’ of the Supreme Court.

They further argued before the seven-member bench, chaired by chief justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, that the administration is already functioning and cannot now be declared unconstitutional.

The Appellate Division will hear the attorney general’s arguments on the appeal today.

Appearing for intervener Firoz Ahmed, a writer and one of the members of the Constitution Reform Commission, lawyer Sharif Bhuiyan said that the appeal was self-contradictory because it branded the government as ‘usurpers,’ even though the same government reconstituted the Supreme Court after August 5, 2024 when the SC was non-functional.

Sharif said that the Supreme Court had no authority to order the framing of a new or provisional constitution as Mohsen prayed, noting that even directing parliament to pass a regular law was beyond its powers.

He argued that any new constitutional framework must come from the people, not the judiciary.

He urged the Appellate Division to uphold the High Court order, saying the appeal raises no constitutional question requiring interpretation. According to him, the SC’s Article 106 opinion is not central to the legality of the government, as a constitutional vacuum existed in August 5–8, 2024, which the interim government filled with public support during the mass uprising.

Lawyer Ruhul Quddus Kazal, another intervener, argued that the president acted lawfully by seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 106 and that the Appellate Division correctly responded.

He said that the claim of procedural irregularities was baseless because the constitution allows the president to seek a reference at his discretion.

Kazal said that no constitutional vacuum existed after Sheikh Hasina had fled the country because the president remained the head of the executive.

He told the court that on August 5, 2024 the president consulted political leaders, service chiefs, civil society and coordinators of the uprising at Bangabhaban, which led to the decision to form an interim government.

He said that the president dissolved parliament on August 6, 2024 and appointed Muhammad Yunus as the chief adviser on August 8, 2024 after taking opinions from the Supreme Court on August 8, 2024 and the attorney general who was appointed on that day.

Kazal concluded that all steps taken during that period were constitutionally valid.

Lawyer Shishir Manir, the third intervener, said that the interim government was formed through the people’s constituent power during the July mass uprising.

He said that there was no functioning government in August 5-8 in 2024 and the new administration emerged with a popular mandate, similar to cases in the Philippines, Grenada and Lesotho, where courts upheld governments created through mass uprising.

Shishir said that the legality of such governments does not depend on a court opinion and that Bangladesh is the only country where a judicial reference was sought after a mass uprising.

He said that the interim government was formed by a broad national consensus and its legitimacy should not be questioned.

All three lawyers, Sharif Bhuiyan, Ruhul Quddus Kazal and Shishir Manir, urged the Appellate Division to dismiss Mohsen Rashid’s appeal and uphold the High Court’s decision that rejected his writ.

Mohsen filed the petition challenging a High Court order that had dismissed his writ petition over the legality of the president’s reference and the Supreme Court’s opinion on forming the interim government.

Appearing in person, Mohsen told the court that the law ministry, not the president, had unlawfully sought the advisory opinion under Article 106 of the constitution.

He also alleged that the signatures of the then chief justice and the senior-most judge on the opinion were forged.

Mohsen requested the Appellate Division to examine the original documents.

On January 13, the High Court dismissed his petition as ‘misconceived and vexatious’.

The court said that the president lawfully sought the advisory opinion under Article 106 due to an extraordinary national situation.

It also ruled that the SC’s advisory opinion was constitutionally valid and could not be challenged under writ jurisdiction.

Later, Mohsen filed the leave to petition with the Appellate Division challanging the High Court ruling.

On September 14, Mohsen wrote on Facebook that the judges appeared to be avoiding his case.

He described the case as a matter of ‘immense public and constitutional importance’ and alleged that the justice system seemed to ‘sway with the wind.’

During the November 12 hearing on the petition for the first day, the apex court sought his explanation after additional attorney general Aneek R Haque requested contempt proceedings over the post.

In an affidavit submitted in response to the Appellate Division’s directive, Mohsen said that he never intended to disrespect the Supreme Court or its judges.

He said that his Facebook comments stemmed from excessive professional zeal during the major constitutional case.

Mohsen added, with sarcasm, that the attorney general and an additional attorney general had called him a ‘habitual contemner’.