It is notable that the Constitution was not in a suspended state when the order related to the referendum in 2025 was issued; Instead, the order was issued while the Constitution was in effect, and the interim government’s decision is largely responsible for creating the current crisis regarding constitutional reform.
Justifying the order related to the referendum, lawyer Sharif Bhuiyan, one of the members of the commission, wrote a column in Prothom Alo on 18 December 2025. In that article titled ‘Legal Basis of the Referendum and Other Relevant Aspects’, he noted, ‘To understand the constitutional basis of the referendum, one must understand the constitutional basis of the government led by Professor Yunus. Because, the constitutional basis of both is the same. It is not true to say that [Yunus] The government was based on a written constitution. still, [this] The government was constitutional and legitimate. After the Prime Minister fled the country, it became impossible to implement the written constitution. Because, the Constitution was not made keeping such a situation in mind. Therefore, the constitutionality and legitimacy of the present government must be sought in principles outside the written Constitution. [like the “Doctrine of Necessity”].’
With regard to Sharif Bhuiyan’s argument, it must be said that it is true that the government was not created solely by the Constitution; However, not following the Constitution without suspending it or partially following it for convenience cannot be considered democratic practice. It is noteworthy that Sharif Bhuiyan has not mentioned Article 106 of the Constitution anywhere in his entire article.
Was the formation of the government after August 5 by implementing the Supreme Court decision under Article 106 a significant event? If yes, then why are efforts being made to avoid discussion on this? This naturally raises questions about the process of obtaining an Article 106 reference from the Supreme Court.