The Reform Council’s future now hinges on parliamentary proceedings

The deadline for convening the first session of the proposed Constitution Reform Council has passed without any action, casting uncertainty over one of the central commitments of the July uprising and sparking a heated exchange between treasury and opposition benches in parliament on Sunday.

According to the July National Charter Implementation Order 2025, the first meeting of the Reform Council was required to be called within 30 days of the publication of the election results — a deadline that expired on March 15.

The President did not mention the council when convening parliament on February 23, and the deadline lapsed without a session being summoned.

Leader of the Opposition and Ameer of Jamaat-e-Islami, Dr Shafiqur Rahman, raised the issue on a point of order in the House during Sunday’s sitting — the second day of the 13th Parliament’s maiden session.

“The current parliament did not emerge through a conventional electoral process. The commitments outlined in the July Charter, including the formation of the Reform Council, carry a mandate that cannot simply be ignored,” he said.

He noted that 77 opposition lawmakers had taken their oath both as members of parliament and as members of the proposed council, stressing that the matter required urgent attention.

Responding on behalf of the treasury bench, Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed outlined the government’s legal position.

“The Constitution does not recognise any body called a Reform Council, and constitutional amendments cannot be enacted through ordinances under Article 93, which only allows presidential ordinances when parliament is not in session,” he said.

He added that the constitutional validity of the Reform Council order had already been challenged in court, where a rule had been issued.

“A state cannot run on emotion; it must operate according to the Constitution and the law,” he told the House, emphasising that any constitutional reform must follow proper legislative procedures, beginning with an amendment to the Constitution itself.

Regarding the timeline for such an amendment, the home minister struck a cautious note. With 133 ordinances already placed before the House and a long recess ahead, he said the current session might not allow sufficient time. He suggested that a constitutional amendment bill could instead be introduced during the budget session if the Business Advisory Committee reaches a consensus.

Speaker Maj (Retd) Hafiz Uddin Ahmed refrained from giving an immediate ruling, asking the opposition leader to submit a formal notice under Rules 62 or 68 of the Rules of Procedure before he would respond.

The issue was also raised by several opposition MPs during the debate on the motion of thanks to the President’s address.

Jamaat MP Barrister Nazibur Rahman Momen argued that the July Charter Order should not be treated as an ordinary ordinance, as it was a constitutional order endorsed through a referendum.

Another Jamaat MP, Abdul Muntakim, said the government had a responsibility to uphold the spirit of the July uprising by moving forward with the charter’s implementation.

Islami Andolan Bangladesh MP Maulana Mahmudul Hossain Waliullah also spoke in favour of establishing the council.

Speaking to journalists after the sitting, Dr Shafiqur Rahman said the Jamaat-led 11-party alliance preferred a parliamentary resolution to the dispute and would submit the required notice as requested by the Speaker.

“We want the issue to be resolved in parliament. But if, for any reason, a normal solution cannot be reached there, we will have no option but to take the issue to the streets through a movement,” he said.

The first session of the 13th Parliament has been adjourned until 3:00pm on March 29 and is scheduled to continue until April 30.