| dc.description.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. | en_US |
