& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Amendment not required

Say two jurists about constitution

Ashutosh Sarkar
Formation of an all-party polls-time government, as proposed by the prime minister, is possible under constitutional provisions.
Two eminent jurists -- M Amir-Ul Islam and Shahdeen Malik - gave the view to The Daily Star yesterday.
But Dr Kamal Hossain, another top jurist and constitution expert, refrained from making any comment on the constitutionality of Sheikh Hasina's proposal.
He, however, said the offer could create a consensus among all political parties. According to him, any step can be taken, even the constitution can be amended, for holding a free and fair election.
Barrister Amir, one of the framers of the original 1972 constitution, observed that Hasina's proposal was "legal and constitutional".
Shahdeen Malik agreed, and said forming a government with MPs drawn from different political parties would create no legal problem.
The two jurists cited Articles 56, 57, 72 and 123 of the constitution to justify their views.
Under Article 56 (4), if occasion arises for making any appointment of ministers or deputy ministers between a
dissolution of parliament and the next following general election of members of parliament, the persons
who were such members immediately before the dissolution shall be regarded for the purpose of this clause as counting to be such members.
According to Amir-Ul, the offer created a new environment of cooperation and if materialised, it would introduce a culture of bipartisan politics.
Asked if it was also possible that any other person other than the current prime minister could head such a polls-time administration, he answered in the negative.
According to him, the constitution and norms in parliamentary democracy made it clear that an MP who enjoyed majority's support would be prime minister.
"1 don't know of any departure from this practice,” he noted.
Article 57 (3) says: "Nothing in this article shall disqualify the Prime Minister for holding office until his successor has entered upon office."