All reforms should be based on constitutional reform report: Experts

On October 3, the interim government issued a notification forming commissions for reforms in the electoral system, judiciary, Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), police, and public administration. Subsequently, on October 7, the Constitutional Reform Commission was established. In the second phase, commissions for media, health, labor, women’s affairs, and local government reforms were also created.

On January 15, Chief Adviser Dr. Muhammad Yunus received reports from the Election Commission, ACC, police, public administration, and Constitutional Reform Commission. These reports contained several recommendations for state reforms. However, reports from the judiciary, media, health, labor, women’s affairs, and local government reform commissions are yet to be submitted.

Legal experts have opined that all reform reports should have been based on the Constitutional Reform Commission’s recommendations, as all issues must align with the constitution. The nature of constitutional reform would dictate how subsequent reforms should be structured. Publishing individual reform reports before the constitutional report might lead to inconsistencies or overlaps, potentially causing complications.

The Constitutional Reform Commission has already proposed several recommendations for judicial reform. These include decentralizing the High Court by establishing permanent regional branches with equal jurisdiction across all divisions of the country. However, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court would remain in the capital. Additionally, it recommended renaming subordinate courts as “local courts,” with their recruitment, posting, promotion, leave, and disciplinary matters entrusted to the Supreme Court. The commission also proposed establishing a judicial secretariat.

Legal experts have argued that these recommendations fall under the jurisdiction of the judiciary reform commission.

Senior Supreme Court lawyer and constitutional expert Dr. Shahdeen Malik said “The constitutional reform report should have been thoroughly analyzed before publishing other reform commission reports. Everything falls under the constitution’s purview. If each commission submits its own reform report, the purpose of the constitutional reform report becomes questionable. There should have been a sequence and consistency. Now, we’ll see how much of these reforms are implemented.”

Another senior lawyer, Ahsanul Karim, emphasized the importance of alignment, saying, “There’s a sequence to everything. The constitutional reform report, which forms the basis for all other reforms, should have been finalized first. If reforms are conducted independently, they risk being uncoordinated or inconsistent with the constitution.”

Barrister Badruddoza Badal highlighted the need for constitutional coherence, stating, “The Election Commission, ACC, and police reform commissions have submitted their reports separately. However, all these reforms fall under the constitution. Therefore, the constitutional reform report should have been completed and published first, followed by other reform reports.”

Senior lawyer Manzill Morshed noted, “The constitutional reform report has already addressed much of the judicial reform agenda. Any additional report from the judiciary reform commission would only elaborate on the same points. Ideally, the constitutional reform report should have been prepared first, setting the framework for all subsequent reform commission reports. This would have ensured consistency and alignment with the constitution.”

On January 15, Professor Ali Riaz, head of the Constitutional Reform Commission, submitted the report, which prioritized seven key areas:

1. Establishing institutional balance of power.


2. Reducing the Prime Minister’s absolute authority.


3. Proposing a defined interim government structure.


4. Decentralizing the judiciary.


5. Strengthening the local government system.


6. Expanding the scope of fundamental rights.


7. Ensuring constitutional safeguards and enforceability.

The commission also proposed changing the country’s name to “People’s Republic of Bangladesh” (Janantrik Bangladesh) and replacing “republic” with “citizen-centric governance” in constitutional terminology.

The Election Reform Commission suggested changes to electoral laws and institutions, including:

Enhancing the Election Commission’s powers and accountability.

Establishing a bicameral parliament with proportional representation.

The ACC Reform Commission, led by Iftekharuzzaman, submitted 47 recommendations to make the ACC independent and effective. The recommendations include two major categories: direct reforms to the ACC and broader structural changes in the state framework to support these reforms.