The High Court on Sunday set May 21 for passing its order on the public-interest-litigation writ petition that sought the government’s explanation why it should not be directed to form an independent commission to investigate the alleged constitutional violations by the interim government.
The bench of Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Fatema Anwar set the schedule after hearing the writ petition filed by lawyer Mohsen Rashid.
Attorney general Md Ruhul Quddus Kajal pleaded for the rejection of Mohsen’s latest writ on the ground that the High Court had summarily rejected his previous writ petition on the same issue and provided the judges certified copy of the verdict.
Meanwhile, a writ petition was filed seeking an investigation into the role of chief adviser Dr Muhammad Yunus and other individuals concerned over the transfer of measles vaccination management from the state system to the private sector.
The writ also sought directives to impose travel bans on 24 individuals, including former chief adviser Dr Yunus and all former advisers.
Supreme Court lawyer M Ashraful Islam filed the writ petition alleging their involvement in handing over the measles vaccination programme to the private sector.
The petition further prayed for the formation of an inquiry commission to investigate the matter and for directives restraining Dr Yunus and members of his advisory council from leaving the country pending an investigation.
MK Rahman, appearing for Mohsen Rashid, requested that the commission be given powers under the Commission of Inquiry Act to inquire into alleged constitution violation by the interim government.
He asked for an inquiry into the 18-month actions committed by the interim government of Prof Yunus.
He also sought an investigation into the alleged financial irregularities involving the withdrawal of legal cases, tax-related benefits, and business advantages linked to Dr Yunus and affiliated entities, claiming that such actions violated the rule of law and accountability principles.
He also called for a scrutiny of the formation and activities of the advisory council, alleging that it operated beyond any constitutional framework and exercised executive powers without lawful authority.
The lawyer further sought investigation into the alleged abuses of power, financial irregularities, and tax-related complaints involving key figures of the interim government, including Prof Yunus.
He also questioned the legality and the national implications of a trade agreement signed with the United States, arguing that it might have been concluded without proper mandate.
He furthered urged the court to declare any actions found committed to be beyond constitutional authority as illegal and void.
The lawyer argued that the interim government had been formed and operated outside the framework of the constitution following the abolition of the caretaker government system through the 15th Amendment.
He contended that chief adviser Yunus unlawfully took the oath prescribed for the prime minister under Article 148 despite having no constitutional authority to do so, adding that article 106 of the constitution did not empower the Supreme Court to legitimise such an arrangement.
He claimed that the advisory council functioned as an extra-constitutional cabinet, adding that the chief adviser had exercised executive powers without an electoral mandate, undermining democratic governance and constitutional accountability.
The lawyer further alleged that the interim administration had failed to maintain constitutional transparency with the president, raised concerns over foreign influence and engagements, and questioned the legality of a trade agreement signed with the United States before the February 12 elections.
