FROM PAGE 3

and an acceptable election.

He said the July National Charter was finalised after eight months of discussions by the consensus commission and was later approved by more than a two-thirds majority in a referendum.

According to him, there had been a consensus that the parliament would function both as a constituent assembly and a legislature. Although a dual oath was part of that understanding, BNP lawmakers did not take it, he added.

In this context, filing a writ with the High Court challenging the legality of the referendum and the July Charter amounts to pushing a political question into the court, Zubair said.

At the press conference, Supreme Court lawyer and Jamaat central working committee member Shishir Monir said one of the petitions sought a rule and stay order declaring the July Charter Implementation Order 2025 and the oath of the Constitutional Reform Assembly unconstitutional.

Another writ challenged Section 3 of the Referendum Ordinance, he said, adding that the referendum had already been completed and the results announced. “It is no longer about questioning the process; the outcome itself is being challenged,” he said.

Monir said the filing of the writ just days before the start of the parliamentary session appeared politically motivated.

“It is clearly a political question. The court should not be made the subject of issues adopted through political consensus,” he added.

Jamaat leaders also said decisions regarding the implementation of reform proposals should rest with elected MPs, and creating a political crisis by bringing the court into the matter was undesirable.