A Supreme Court lawyer from Kishoreganj, Abu Bakkar Mohammad Ataul Mazid, on Tuesday filed a public interest litigation writ petition challenging the nationwide referendum held on February 12, 2026.
The petition seeks a High Court Rule asking the respondents to explain why the referendum and the gazette notification published on February 13, 2026, should not be declared unlawful and without legal effect.
The lawyer told New Age that the writ petition would be heard by Justice Fatema Najib and Justice AFM Saiful Karim next week.
The petitioner also asked the court to declare that any outcome of the referendum is non-binding and unenforceable in law. He further sought a direction to frame a clear constitutional and statutory framework before holding any future referendum.
He requested an interim order to restrain the authorities from giving effect to the referendum results pending disposal of the writ.
The petition argues that the Constitution is the supreme law and binds all organs of the state, including the interim government. It states that any exercise of power without constitutional authorisation is ultra vires and void, and that the interim government cannot assume sovereign or constituent powers.
The petitioner said constitutional violations cannot be justified on grounds of necessity or political transition and warned that failure of judicial restraint could set a dangerous precedent for extra-constitutional governance.
The petition alleges that the referendum was conducted without a clear constitutional framework, without a comprehensive law or rules, and without ensuring transparency, neutrality, equal participation and informed consent of voters. It also raised allegations of lack of parliamentary authorisation, inadequate voter education, unclear questions, administrative dominance and absence of effective judicial oversight.
The petitioner argued that such actions affect popular sovereignty, which is part of the Constitution’s basic structure, and cited Articles 7 and 11 of the Constitution on people’s sovereignty, democracy and rule of law.
He further claimed that holding the referendum without lawful authority violated Articles 27, 31 and 32 of the Constitution and was arbitrary, unreasonable and lacking due process.
He cited Supreme Court judgments, including Anwar Hossain Chowdhury vs Bangladesh and Kudrat-E-Elahi Panir vs Bangladesh, to argue that constitutional supremacy and popular participation are core constitutional values.
He said any executive action beyond constitutional authority is void and warned that constitutional limits could be exceeded during transitional governance without judicial guidance.
