What is it about?
The article provides a critical examination of the judicial review of constitutional amendments in Bangladesh, tracing the developments up to the case of Government of Bangladesh and Others v Advocate Asaduzzaman Siddiqui and Others. It contends that the importance of the basic structure doctrine has diminished with the introduction of codified unamendability (Article 7B) and its subsequent application in the aforementioned Asaduzzaman Siddiqui case. This argument asserts that it is no longer the foremost normative tool for assessing the validity of constitutional amendments in the post-Article 7B era.
Featured Image
Photo by Michel Labeaume on Unsplash
Why is it important?
The article presents a critical analysis of the reasoning provided in the majority opinion of the Asaduzzaman Siddiqui case. It aims to demonstrate that the Court's decision to declare the sixteenth constitutional amendment ultra vires is not entirely flawless.
Perspectives
The article discusses in-depth what the basic structure doctrine means in the constitutional normative framework of Bangladesh. It is anticipated that students studying constitutional law will find this article useful.
Kawser Ahmed
Eastern University
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Revisiting Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments in Bangladesh: Article 7B, the Asaduzzaman Case, and the Fall of the Basic Structure Doctrine, Israel Law Review, January 2023, Cambridge University Press,
DOI: 10.1017/s0021223721000297.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
