The decision of the Members of Parliament belonging to the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) to refrain from taking the oath as members of the proposed "Constitution Reform Council"-while duly taking oath as Members of Parliament-raises a constitutional question of considerable importance.
As the Referendum sought people's consent to the "July National Charter 2025", which aims to completely change the notion how the country should be governed. The July Charter outlines a total of 84 reform points related to state restructuring, so what really is going on by the refusal of BNP to take the second oath?
"None of us have been elected as members of the Constitution Reform Commission, and it is not yet incorporated into the Constitution. According to the referendum, if the Constitution Reform Commission is formed, it must first be included in the Constitution. It must also be determined who will administer the oath to its members," the newly elected MP from Cox's Bazar-1 Salahuddin Ahmed told the media adding that "…Once it is constitutionally adopted in the National Parliament, the procedure for swearing in members of the Constitution Reform Commission can be established. Until then, we are following the Constitution. We have acted constitutionally so far, and we hope to continue doing so in the days ahead. We elected Members of the Parliament," the newly elected MP from Cox's Bazar-1 Salahuddin Ahmed made it clear.
"If we are looking into the oath taking ceremony, the lawmakers taking their oath under the existing constitution, and they repeatedly uttered this word "according to the constitution" it means they are following the existing procedures of the constitution under the President's supervision, now the issue of the "July National Charter 2025", it's an order issued by the President, which is related with the total restructuring of the constitution, and according to the Article 93, these type of changes in constitution is not under the jurisdiction of the President…so what the BNP has did, is not any violation of the constitution," constitution expert Dr. Jotirmoy Barua said.
It is important to distinguish between political legitimacy and constitutional legality. Political actors may, in the exercise of their discretion, agree to symbolic or procedural undertakings in furtherance of reform. Such undertakings may carry political significance. However, they do not acquire binding legal force unless and until they are incorporated into the constitutional framework through the prescribed amendment process.
If subjected to judicial scrutiny, it is likely that the courts would focus on the textual and structural requirements of Article 148 and the Third Schedule. The judiciary has historically maintained that constitutional procedures relating to oath and assumption of office must be strictly followed. Any deviation from constitutionally prescribed forms risks undermining the legality of the office itself.
The issue is neither partisan nor procedural in the ordinary sense; it goes to the heart of constitutional supremacy, the rule of law, and the legal architecture governing public office in Bangladesh.
At its core, the controversy turns on a fundamental principle: whether an oath not expressly contemplated by the Constitution can be regarded as legally obligatory, he added.
"The Constitution of Bangladesh provides a clear and structured framework governing the administration of oath. Article 148(1) explicitly states that any person elected or appointed to a constitutional office must, before entering upon that office, make and subscribe an oath in the form set out in the Third Schedule. This provision establishes three essential preconditions for a valid and binding oath. First, the office in question must be one recognized by the Constitution. Second, the form and content of the oath must be prescribed in the Third Schedule. Third, the oath must be administered by the authority designated by the Constitution.
These requirements are not merely formalities; they are substantive safeguards designed to preserve constitutional order and prevent the arbitrary creation of obligations outside the constitutional framework. The oath is not a symbolic ritual but a legal act that derives its validity solely from constitutional authorization.
In contrast, the oath required of Members of Parliament is unquestionably constitutional. Article 65 establishes Parliament as a constitutional body and the Third Schedule prescribes the precise form of oath for Members of Parliament. Accordingly, the decision of BNP Members of Parliament to take oath in their capacity as MPs fully complies with the Constitution and affirms their commitment to the constitutional order," a constitutional expert not willing to be named told the Daily Observer.
The more complex question arises in relation to the proposed Constitution Reform Council. As matters presently stand, this body does not appear to be expressly recognized or established by any provision of the Constitution. Nor is there any oath relating to such a body prescribed in the Third Schedule. In the absence of a constitutional amendment formally incorporating the Reform Council into the constitutional structure, it cannot be regarded as a constitutional office within the meaning of Article 148.
This distinction is critical. The Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic, as declared in Article 7. All organs of the State and all exercises of public power, must derive their authority from the Constitution. No political agreement, parliamentary resolution, or executive initiative-however well-intentioned-can impose legal obligations that lack constitutional foundation. To hold otherwise would be to permit the gradual erosion of constitutional supremacy through informal or extra-constitutional mechanisms.
From a strictly legal standpoint, therefore, the refusal to take an oath not mandated or recognized by the Constitution cannot be construed as a violation of constitutional duty. On the contrary, it may be viewed as an affirmation of constitutional fidelity. The Constitution does not prohibit participation in constitutional reform processes; indeed, Article 142 expressly empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution.
The Referendum sought people's consent to the July National Charter 2025, which aims to completely change how the country is governed. The July Charter outlines a total of 84 reform points related to state restructuring.
Importantly, the Order drops the earlier option for "automatic incorporation" and instead provides that, if the outcome of the Referendum is positive, the next Parliament will also simultaneously function as a Constitutional Reform Council, mandated to implement the required constitutional reforms within a maximum of 180 days.
Jamaat-e-Islami's newly elected Members of Parliament on Tuesday initially refused to take the oath of office after the victorious BNP's denial to take the pledge as members of the "Constitution Reform Council".
Jamaat's deputy chief Abdullah Mohammad Taher said, they will take no oath unless BNP MPs take oath as members of "Constitution Reform Council" alongside regular parliament members." Later on Jamaat MPs decided to take oath as MP. They also took oath as members of Reform Council.
He said their party believed "parliament without the constitutional reform is meaningless".
