AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightIn other words, as long as Article7B exists in the Constitution, it will continue to be important for the Court in determining the validity of constitutional amendments...continued in the article
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
The 1972 Constitution of Bangladesh clearly regulates the ju risdiction of the Bangladesh Supreme Court. However, there is no provision in the Constitution for judicial review of constitutional amendments. There is also no one or more unamendable provisions in the first version of the Constitution. In Bangladesh, the issue of review of constitutional amendments was first raised in the Anwar Hossain Chowdhury case. In Anwar Hossain Chowdhury, the Bang ladesh Supreme Court resolved the constitutionality of the Eighth Amendment by adopting a practice similar to that of the Supreme Court of India, known as the “basic structure doctrine”. It should be noted that most of the judges in the Anwar Hossain Chowdhury case drew heavily from the jurisprudence in the Indian jurisdiction in shaping their thinking on the basic structure doctrine in the judi cial review of constitutional amendments. As a result, with this ca se, it has been accepted that the Constitution has implied limits and in this context, the so-called “basic structure doctrine” has been recognized by the judicial organs in the country. Thus, with this case, the basic structure doctrine has been introduced as a norma tive tool in determining the conformity of a constitutional amend ment with the Constitution in terms of substance (content).In recent years, the “basic structure doctrine”, which has been put forward by the judicial organs of some countries that embrace the supremacy of the constitution, has found an important place in the constitutional law agenda. Courts using this doctrine give themselves extraordinary power to review constitutional amendments based on their content. In some constitutions, there are clauses that prevent the amendment of certain provisions and principles of the constitu tion, “entrenching” them, so to speak. However, the constitutions of countries where the “basic structure doctrine” is applied do not have such clauses. Instead, courts have imposed “implied limits” on the legislature's power to amend the constitution. The Bangladesh Consti tution did not contain such a protective clause when it came into for ce. However, in 2011, the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Bangladesh introduced a comprehensive unamendable article (Article 7B). Instead of making only the fundamental constitutional principles and the character of the Republic unamendable, Article 7B renders unamendable an unusually long series of provisions, totaling 52 artic les, almost a third of the Constitution. Moreover, it is an extremely radical innovation to make “the provisions of the articles relating to the basic structures of the Constitution” unamendable without iden tifying the basic structures one by one. In sum, in Anwar Hossain Chowdhury, the judges stated that amendments to constitutional provisions are permissible as long as they do not undermine the basic structures of the Constitution; they did not impose an absolute prohibition on amending any provision of the Constitution. In contrast, Article 7B identifies certain provisions of the Constitution as fundamental structures and provides that amendment of any of these protected provisions is absolutely prohi bited in any manner whatsoever. In other words, Article 7B transpo sed the concept of fundamental structures into the text of the Consti tution. In the doctrine, this practice is referred to as the “the basic provision doctrine”. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh has to take this article into account when it comes to reviewing the validity of constitutional amendments in the future. In other words, as long as Article7B exists in the Constitution, it will continue to be important for the Court in determining the validity of constitutional amendments...continued in the article
Özet
Son yıllarda anayasanın üstünlüğünü benimseyen bazı ülkelerin yargı organları tarafından ortaya konan “temel yapı doktrini”, anayasa hukuku gündeminde önemli bir yer bulmuştur. Bu doktrini kullanan mahkemeler, anayasa değişikliklerinin içeriğine bakarak denetim yapma konusunda kendilerine olağanüstü bir yetki tanımaktadırlar. Bangladeş Yüksek Mahkemesi “temel yapı doktrini”ni ilk kez, 1989 yılında karara bağlanan Anwar Hossain Chowdhurdy davasında benimsemiştir. Bu tarihten sonra uzun bir zaman boyunca temel yapı doktrini, Bangladeş’te anayasa değişikliklerinin yargısal denetiminde tek ölçü olarak kullanılmıştır. Bangladeş Anayasasında 2011 yılındayapılan On Beşinci Anayasa Değişikliği ile getirilen geniş kapsamlı 7B maddesi, Anayasanın önemli sayıda hükmünün değiştirilemeyeceğini açıkça ortaya koymuştur. Bu çalışmada, 7B hükmünün getirilmesiyle birlikte temel yapı doktrininin, Bangladeş Anayasasında gelecekte yapılacak olan anayasa değişikliklerinin yargısal denetiminde en önemli ölçü olma özelliğini yitireceği ifade edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Yük- sek Mahkeme yargıçlarının görevden alınmasına ilişkin parlamento mekanizmasının Anayasanın 7B maddesine dayanılarak anayasaya aykırı bulunduğu Asaduzzaman Siddiqui davası ise bu iddiayı kanıtlar niteliktedir.