The third session of the 13th Jatiya Sangsad, although shorter than the first two, offered several indications of the difficulties ahead.

Tensions between the treasury and opposition benches became evident as the ruling party pushed through bills despite objections and denied opposition leadership of key watchdogs.

In only nine working days, parliament passed six bills.

The six pieces of legislation include the Enforced Disappearance Prevention and Redress Bill, 2026, which criminalises enforced disappearance and seeks to ensure justice for victims; the National Human Rights Commission Bill, 2026, which has repealed the 2009 law and established a new framework for the commission; and the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which has updated the 1882 law governing property transfers.

The session also passed the Special Response Battalion (SRB) Bill, 2026, dissolving the controversial Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and creating the SRB; the Armed Police Battalions (APBn) Bill, 2026, replacing the 1979 APBn Ordinance with a new legal framework; and the Bank Resolution (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which abolished the controversial provision allowing former owners of weakened banks to reclaim control.

The speed with which these bills moved through parliament has become a central point of contention.

The opposition protested against all six bills. Its objections were particularly strong over the enforced disappearance and National Human Rights Commission legislation. Opposition lawmakers even boycotted discussions on the two bills, arguing that the legislation did not reflect the spirit of the broader reform process and was weaker than the legislation introduced by the interim government.

The treasury bench binned the allegations, saying they had made the draft laws stronger and time befitting.

Except for the SRB Bill, the respective parliamentary standing committees were given only two days to scrutinise the legislation. Each committee sat for only once to prepare its recommendations. The government allowed four days for scrutiny of the SRB Bill, but only after the opposition demanded more time.

The issue is not simply whether parliament passed the bills quickly. The more fundamental concern is whether MPs had sufficient opportunity to examine complex legislation, consult stakeholders and propose meaningful changes before voting.

Parliament has no general deadline requiring such bills to be passed within a few days. Yet, following the pattern of the first two sessions, legislation was again pushed through quickly.

Time constraints have repeatedly been cited as the justification.

During the first session, the government hurried the ratification of ordinances, arguing that constitutional obligations left little time.

In the second session, several bills were again passed quickly, with time constraints once again cited as a reason. But the same justification continues to be used even when there was no emergency situation or constitutional deadline requiring legislation to be enacted immediately.

MPs were at times not given copies of the bills sufficiently in advance. In some cases, they received them barely an hour before debate, leaving little realistic opportunity for detailed examination.

Even Deputy Speaker Kayser Kamal expressed dismay over delays in sending bills to parliament despite cabinet approval having come several days earlier.

His observation went to the heart of the issue: bills should reach parliament without delay so that all members have adequate time to study them before they are debated and passed.

This raises concerns about the legislature’s ability to perform its prime functions in passing legislation properly.

A parliament is not merely a voting chamber. Its value lies in the process that takes place before a vote: examining legislation, identifying unintended consequences, hearing competing arguments and forcing the government to explain and defend its proposals.

When MPs receive legislation at the last moment or committees are given only one sitting to scrutinise major bills, that deliberative function is inevitably weakened.

The dispute over parliamentary standing committees has added another layer to the problem.

The third session formed 35 standing committees, completing the establishment of all 50 parliamentary standing committees. Under the Rules of Procedure, all standing committees must be formed within the third session of a parliament. Of the 50 committees, 39 are related to different ministries.

Opposition MPs were denied chairmanship of all but one committee, despite their demand for 26 percent of the chairmanships. Deputy leader of the opposition, Syed Abdullah Muhammed Taher, was made chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. No opposition lawmaker was given the chairmanship of any ministry-related standing committee.

The Speaker, Hafiz Uddin Ahmad, had also raised concerns over the inclusion of cabinet members and whips as chiefs in the standing committees, a practice that goes against established parliamentary norms. Those concerns were nevertheless not reflected in the final arrangement.

Standing committees are among the principal mechanisms through which parliament can scrutinise government ministries and public expenditure. If the cabinet members and whips become chairman of the committees, there is real risk that they might function as extensions of the executive branch rather than as genuine oversight bodies.

During the third session of parliament, both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker repeatedly urged lawmakers to maintain discipline by refraining from side conversations and mobile phone use inside the chamber.

Brahmanbaria-2 independent MP Rumeen Farhana alleged that she was subjected to “abusive language” while criticising the ruling party. In response, the Speaker expressed hope that neither government nor opposition members would obstruct their counterparts during speeches.

In a rare instance, the House adopted a motion from the opposition bench requiring home minister to brief parliament on efforts to bring former IGP Benazir Ahmed back from Dubai and to outline steps already taken by the government.

The session also featured lively debates on the energy and fertiliser crises. All three motions were brought by opposition MPs.

Members often sought the floor during the passage of laws and, in some cases, continued speaking on related issues even after bills had already been passed. At this, the Speaker raised concerns about the misuse of points of order.