A tense exchange over the proposed Constitutional Reform Council turned the floor of the Jatiya Sangsad into a forum of competing visions on Sunday, as the second day of the parliament’s maiden session saw government and opposition leaders spar over whether the country is ready to move ahead with structural constitutional reforms promised under the July National Charter.
The debate unfolded when Opposition Leader Dr Shafiqur Rahman, also Amir of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, raised what he called a pressing deadline tied to the charter’s implementation.
According to him, the timeline for convening the first session of the proposed Constitutional Reform Council had effectively expired.
“This parliament itself emerged from the context of the July Uprising,” he told lawmakers. “The electoral process was not conventional; it was constituted through a presidential order on November 13 last year. That order contained fifteen directives, and several of them deal directly with the July National Charter and the referendum.”
Referring to the tenth directive, Shafiqur argued that the first meeting of the council should have been called within 30 calendar days in a manner similar to the first sitting of parliament after an election.
“Today is the thirtieth day,” he said, raising his voice slightly above the hum of the chamber. “Yet the council has not been convened. The question now is how this obligation will be fulfilled under the Constitution of Bangladesh.”
‘No council exists constitutionally’
The response from the treasury benches came quickly.
Home Affairs Minister Salahuddin Ahmed acknowledged the political commitment behind the charter but insisted that the state must move strictly through constitutional procedures.
“There is currently no Constitutional Reform Council recognised by the Constitution,” he said. “The president has convened a session of the National Parliament, and we are participating here in accordance with the Constitution.”
He noted that although some figures have taken oaths as members of a proposed council, its legality is already under judicial scrutiny.
“The matter is before the courts, and a rule has been issued. Constitutionally speaking, such a council does not yet exist,” he told the House.
"According to Article 72 of the Constitution, there is no existence of a constitution reform council, so the Prime Minister can't recommend to the President to do so (to summon the council). Since the President can't summon it, he didn't do it," he said.
Salahuddin further cited that Parliament may hold discussions on whether the July National Charter (Constitution Reform) Implementation Order, 2025, issued by the President, is constitutionally valid.
Referring to Article 93 of the Constitution, he said the President may promulgate ordinances when Parliament is not in session, but such ordinances cannot alter the Constitution.
"Any change to the Constitution cannot come through an ordinance," he said, raising questions about the legal nature of the presidential order.
Referendum verdict and constitutional limits
Salahuddin devoted a significant part of his remarks to the referendum that endorsed the July National Charter, arguing that its outcome cannot be implemented automatically without amending the Constitution.
“If the referendum verdict is to be implemented, the Constitution must first be reformed,” he said. “A constitutional amendment must precede any step to incorporate those provisions.”
The minister also pointed to complications in the referendum process itself. While the ballot formally offered simple “yes” or “no” choices, he said four additional complex questions were introduced later through an order.
“One of those questions alone took three and a half hours to read,” he remarked, suggesting that voters may not have fully grasped the implications before casting their ballots.
Even so, he maintained that the government accepts the political importance of the charter.
“The will of the people must be respected,” he said, “but it must be respected constitutionally, legally. The state does not run on emotion; it runs on the Constitution, law and rules.”
"I am not denying anything. The public mandate must be respected, but it has to be done constitutionally and legally. There is no place for emotion here. A state does not run on emotion; it runs through the Constitution and laws," he said.
Reform through parliament?
Rather than rejecting the proposal outright, Salahuddin offered a procedural pathway.
He suggested that lawmakers could begin discussions in the parliamentary Business Advisory Committee and later introduce a constitutional amendment bill, possibly during the upcoming budget session.
If such a bill is passed, the formation of a reform council could follow legally, he added.
“We are committed to fulfilling the July National Charter to the letter,” the minister said. “But the process must pass through this House.”
A debate likely to spill outside parliament
The exchange comes as the Jamaat-led 11-party alliance continues to press for the immediate convening of the council and has warned of street protests if the demand is ignored.
With the Bangladesh Nationalist Party government signalling that reform must proceed through parliamentary amendment rather than executive action, the disagreement highlights a deeper tension between political urgency and constitutional procedure.
Inside parliament, the debate remained procedural. Outside, it is quickly becoming one of the first major political tests for the newly formed legislature.