Our Constitution was promulgated on November 4, 1972 and came into effect on December 16, 1972. Over time, the Constitution needs changes to establish an adequate democracy in the country. To this end, it is necessary to review some provisions of the Constitution. The provisions are as follows:

Article 70

One of the most important articles of the Constitution is article 70, known as the “Anti-drift Law”. According to this article, the seat of a Member of Parliament will become vacant if he votes against the party that nominated him as a candidate in the election for which he became a Member of Parliament. This unique provision gives the prime minister exclusive power over the members of his party.

Democracy is one of the four fundamental principles of our State policy. Article 11 reiterates that the Republic will be a democracy. But Article 70 of our Constitution directly contradicts the very idea of ​​democracy. It thwarts all the positive devices of the Constitution in the name of preventing floor crossing.

Article 55 (3) establishes that “The Cabinet shall be collectively responsible to Parliament.” This collective responsibility provision has become empty rhetoric due to Article 70, as the Cabinet is always confident that it will not be defeated by a vote of no confidence. As a result, all bills, however undemocratic, are passed.

From the above discussion, we can say that article 70 of our Constitution should be amended but not completely abolished. If article 70 is totally repealed, parliamentarians will exercise their right whenever they wish. In my opinion, Article 70 should be applicable only in case of no-confidence motions and money bills. But in the case of ordinary invoices, Article 70 should not apply.

Article 66, paragraph 2, dd, and 99, paragraph 1

Two other important provisions of the Constitution are Article 66 (2) (dd) and Article 99 (1). Both articles refer to the “Earnings Office.” The Supreme Court held in its decision that the positions of President, Prime Minister, Minister, Senior Adviser or Adviser are not positions of profit. Now the question arises as to what positions would be called Benefit Offices. It is disappointing that our Constitution is silent on the definition of “Profit Office.” A clear definition would end several future constitutional debates.

Article 48 (3) and 55

At present, the president can exercise nominal power. We know that, in accordance with article 48 (3) of our Constitution, the president must perform all functions in accordance with the advice of the prime minister, except that of appointing the prime minister and the president of the Supreme Court.

The President appoints the Prime Minister in accordance with article 56 (3) and the Chief Justice in accordance with article 95 (1) of our Constitution. On the other hand, the Prime Minister is in general due to article 55 (1) and 55 (2).

According to Article 55 (1) of our Constitution, “There will be a Cabinet for Bangladesh which will have the Prime Minister at the head and also other Ministers that the Prime Minister may appoint from time to time.”

According to article 55 (2) of our Constitution, “The executive power of the Republic, in accordance with this Constitution, shall be exercised by or under the authority of the Prime Minister.”

According to article 55 (3) of our Constitution, “The Cabinet shall be collectively accountable to Parliament.” But the effectiveness of this provision is flawed by virtue of article 70 of the Constitution.

By the previous articles, it can be said that the Prime Minister is the constitutional dictator. The appointment of ministers, the removal of ministers and the size of the cabinet, etc., rests with the Prime Minister. It seems that the Cabinet in Bangladesh is like a solar system where the Prime Minister is the sun and the others are planets around him due to Article 55 (1) and 55 (2). Here, I propose a balance of powers between the president and the prime minister.

Article 97

We know that there are three main organs of a government. And the Judiciary is one of them. But it is regrettable that the position of President of the Supreme Court is not secured due to article 97 of our Constitution.

Article 96 says that a judge cannot be removed by the president alone without the recommendation of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary.

But, by interpreting article 97, the President has the power to dismiss the President of the Supreme Court without any recommendation from the Supreme Council of the Judiciary. In accordance with article 97, if the President is convinced that the President of the Supreme Court, due to absence, illness or any other cause, cannot perform the functions of his office, the President will appoint a new President of the Supreme Court. In this provision, by inserting the words “any other cause” there is a reservation of power for the President to remove the President of the Supreme Court. So, although all the positions of the judges are secured, the office of Chief Justice is not secured.

By such an arrangement, President Parvez Mosharraf removed the Chief Justice of Pakistan. So there was a chaotic situation in Pakistan. This type of situation can also occur in our country. Therefore, to avoid this type of difficulty, article 97 should be amended.

Today, some people are raising their voices to make changes to our Constitution. Above are my recommendations for readers and interested parties to consider.