Constitutional Review in Bangladesh and Amendment Identity is a crucial topic in comparative constitutional law. It deals with two interrelated questions:

1. Can constitutional amendments be reviewed by courts?
2. Is there a core “identity” of the Constitution that cannot be amended?

In Bangladesh, the judiciary has developed a strong doctrine similar to India’s basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s amending power.

1. Constitutional Framework of Bangladesh

• The Constitution of Bangladesh (1972) provides amendment power under Article 142
• Initially, Parliament had wide powers to amend any part of the Constitution
• However, judicial interpretation introduced substantive limits

2. Concept of Constitutional Review of Amendments

Constitutional review means:

• Courts can examine whether amendments violate fundamental constitutional principles
• Even if procedurally valid, amendments can be struck down if they damage core features

👉 This leads to the idea of “Amendment Identity” — the Constitution has an essential character that must remain intact.

3. Doctrine of Amendment Identity (Basic Structure)

Borrowed and adapted from India, this doctrine holds:

• Certain features are unamendable
• Parliament cannot alter the basic identity of the Constitution

Core Features Identified in Bangladesh:

• Supremacy of the Constitution
• Rule of law
• Judicial independence
• Democracy
• Secularism
• Fundamental rights

4. Landmark Case Laws

1. Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v. Bangladesh

• Introduced the basic structure doctrine in Bangladesh
• Court held that Parliament cannot destroy essential features
• Struck down part of the 8th Amendment

👉 Foundation case for amendment identity.

2. Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd. v. Government of Bangladesh

• Declared the 5th Amendment unconstitutional
• Restored secularism and constitutional supremacy
• Rejected military-era constitutional changes

👉 Reinforced constitutional identity and judicial review.

3. Abdul Mannan Khan v. Government of Bangladesh

• Struck down caretaker government amendment
• Held it violated democratic structure
• However, allowed temporary continuation for stability

👉 Balanced legality with practical governance.

4. Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Masdar Hossain

• Strengthened judicial independence
• Declared separation of judiciary from executive essential

👉 Judicial independence recognized as part of basic structure.

5. Kudrat-E-Elahi Panir v. Bangladesh

• Emphasized democracy and local governance
• Limited arbitrary constitutional changes affecting representation

6. District Bar Association, Pabna v. Bangladesh

• Struck down amendment allowing Parliament to remove judges
• Held it violated judicial independence

👉 Strong assertion of amendment identity doctrine.

7. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

• Though Indian, heavily influenced Bangladesh
• Established basic structure doctrine
• Courts can review constitutional amendments

👉 Doctrinal foundation for Bangladesh jurisprudence.

5. Key Legal Principles

(1) Limited Amending Power

• Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its identity

(2) Supremacy of Constitution

• Constitution is above Parliament
• Amendments must conform to its basic principles

(3) Judicial Review of Amendments

• Courts have authority to strike down unconstitutional amendments

(4) Preservation of Constitutional Identity

• Core features must remain intact despite changes

6. Evolution of the Doctrine in Bangladesh

Phase 1: Parliamentary Supremacy

• Early assumption that Parliament could amend anything

Phase 2: Judicial Assertion

• Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v. Bangladesh introduced limits

Phase 3: Expansion

• Courts actively struck down unconstitutional amendments
• Reinforced democracy, secularism, and judicial independence

7. Criticism and Debates

(a) Judicial Overreach

• Critics argue courts interfere with legislative authority

(b) Lack of Clear Definition

• “Basic structure” is not exhaustively defined

(c) Democratic Tension

• Unelected judges vs elected Parliament

8. Comparative Perspective

India

• Strong basic structure doctrine (origin case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala)

Pakistan

• More inconsistent approach; doctrine less firmly established

Bangladesh

• One of the strongest adopters of amendment identity doctrine

9. Conclusion

Constitutional review in Bangladesh has evolved into a powerful tool to protect the identity of the Constitution. Through landmark judgments, the judiciary has ensured that:

• Democracy, rule of law, and judicial independence remain intact
• Parliament’s amending power is not absolute
• Constitutional identity is preserved across generations

👉 The Bangladeshi experience shows a strong commitment to constitutional supremacy over parliamentary supremacy.