Attorney General Mohammad Asaduzzaman has said that the legality of the interim government is now settled, and there is no room to question its formation, oath‑taking, or the next parliament.
He made the remarks while speaking to reporters at his office on Thursday, following the Supreme Court’s judgment declaring the formation and oath-taking of the interim government legal.
A seven-member bench of the Appellate Division, headed by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, pronounced the verdict on Thursday. The SC bench also dismissed a leave-to-appeal petition and upheld the High Court order.
On 13 January, the High Court passed an order declaring the formation and oath-taking of the interim government, formed after the July mass uprising, legal.
The case originated from a writ petition filed by senior lawyer Mohammad Mohsen Rashid, challenging the process of formation and oath-taking of the current government after the July–August mass uprising that toppled the Awami League government.
Rashid argued that the president’s reference and the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on the formation of the caretaker government were unconstitutional under Article 106, as such a system does not exist in the constitution.
However, Attorney General Asaduzzaman said the SC cannot direct the passage of any law. “In the post-uprising situation, the Court provided advisory opinions to safeguard citizens’ rights. The uprising itself cannot be labelled legal or illegal. The interim government represents the people, and it will be formed according to the decisions of the victorious public. No revolutionary government will be questioned,” he said.
During the 2024 mass uprising, the SC effectively convened to provide an advisory opinion on forming the interim government, he added.
“When the President referred the matter, the Appellate Division provided the opinion. This is advisory, not a hearing or judgment,” he clarified.
The Appellate Division’s verdict has maintained the High Court’s previous decision, confirming that the interim government’s formation was lawful and does not require subsequent parliamentary approval.
