Concept of Basic Structure of the Constitution: Safeguarding Constitutional Identity.

Abstract

One of the important constitutional laws of Bangladesh is that the basic structure of the country cannot be changed by parliament and not by referendum. Perhaps the main advantage of such a doctrine is to protect the Constitution, the solemn expression of the will of the people, from unwanted encroachment by legislatures using majority force. However, although the Constitution of Bangladesh is a complex written constitution and also one of the largest in the world, it does not have any specific provisions regarding the basic structure of the country. The Bangladesh case, commonly known as the 8th Amendm ent case. As a result, the basic structure of our Constitution is now outside the authority of the revision authority, and a new interpretation of Section 142 has also been introduced. The judicial consolidation of Anwar Hossain Chowdhury's fundamental str uctural doctrine against Bangladesh (1981), commonly known as the Eighth Amendment Case (EAC) 1 is regarded as an important milestone in the constitutional history of Bangladesh. By invoking doctrine, parliament is prevented from amending certain fundament al or essential features of theConstitution, even if they are not explicitly named. This article does not question the legitimacy or usefulness of the doctrine, but instead critically examines the EAC's ruling and its application in subsequent decisions t hat led to its adoption. into constitutional law (Fifteenth Amendment) in The article argues that: i) the Supreme Court's questionable position during a time of political and constitutional turmoil reduced the viability of the doctrine in Bangladesh in the first place, ii) the EAC encountered contradictions that made it a good precedent for a Constitutional Court has long been eclipsed by extra constitutional authority, iii) in subsequent cases it is easy for the Court to accept or subjectively apply the EAC's order, and iv) Parliament, while respecting certain constitutionally immutable features, not only disregards judicial decisions in this matter regarding the basic features, but also disregards the Constitution.