Law justice and parliamentary affairs minister Md Asaduzzaman is set to place all the 133 ordinances before the Jatiya Sangsad on March 12 that were promulgated by the president under Article 93 of the constitution during the interim government led by Muhammad Yunus when parliament was not in session.
Of the ordinances, 17 were promulgated in 2024, 80 in 2025, and 36 until February 2026, according to officials of the ministry.
Besides the ordinances, one presidential order — the July National Charter (Constitution Reform) Implementation Order, 2025 — was issued.
Legal experts say that the order does not require placement before parliament because the constitution requires only ordinances, not presidential orders, to be placed before the legislature.
A senior official of the Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division of the ministry told New Age that the presidential order would not be placed before the JS as the constitution contains no provision requiring such orders to be tabled.
The official said that the ministry on February 19 asked 34 ministries to take steps to convert the ordinances into laws.
A second notice, along with copies of the respective ordinances, was sent on February 22.
In another letter on March 1, the Law and Justice Division asked the relevant ministries and divisions to submit summaries and draft bills by March 4 to facilitate their approval by the Cabinet Division.
After the ordinances are placed in parliament, the respective ministries will initiate steps to turn them into laws.
The JS will decide whether to ratify them, according to the parliamentary practices.
Before giving the decision, the ordinances may also be sent to the parliamentary standing committee for scrutiny.
If any of the ordinances are not ratified by the JS, the ordinance(s) concerned will be lost validity because of the lapse of approval within 30 days, according to the constitution.
The ordinances cover a wide range of ministries and divisions.
One ordinance — the Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Ordinance — is linked to the Cabinet Division. Four ordinances were issued under the Prime Minister’s Office and four others under the public administration ministry.
One ordinance each is related to the land ministry and the women and children affairs ministry, including the Women and Children Repression (Prevention) Ordinance. Another ordinance is linked to the expatriate welfare and foreign employment ministry.
Seven ordinances, including the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, are linked to the Election Commission Secretariat.
Seven ordinances under the home ministry include the July Mass Uprising (Protection and Liability Determination) Ordinance, 2026, the Enforced Disappearance Prevention (Amendment) Ordinance, 2024, the Police Commission Ordinance, 2025, and the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025.
Ten ordinances are linked to the Internal Resources Division. Seven ordinances — including the Bangladesh Bank (Amendment) Ordinance, the Grameen Bank (Amendment) Ordinance, and the Negotiable Instruments Ordinance — fall under the Financial Institutions Division.
Three ordinances are linked to the Power and Energy Division and three to the environment, forest and climate change ministry.
Ten ordinances are related to the Local Government Division, while 12 are linked to the housing and public works ministry.
Five ordinances are connected to the Information and Communication Technology Division, while one — the Right to Information (Amendment) Ordinance — is linked to the information and broadcasting ministry.
Jurist Shahdeen Malik on Monday told New Age that the ordinances were promulgated by the president under Article 93, but the constitutional basis for issuing the July National Charter Implementation Order was unclear.
He said that it would be difficult to determine the validity of the presidential order.
He noted that several presidential orders were issued in 1972 following the proclamation of independence, when the president exercised both executive and legislative powers.
Lawyer Moyeen Alam Firozee said that the president issued the order on the advice of the interim government but added that he did not support actions beyond the constitution.
Pro-BNP lawyer Ruhul Quddus Kazal said that the issue might be left to the judiciary as the High Court has issued a rule questioning the legality of the referendum ordinance and the July National Charter Implementation Order.
Lawyer Mohammad Shishir Manir, however, said that the JS does not need to ratify the presidential order because it had already been partially implemented through a referendum held alongside the national election on February 12 under the Referendum Ordinance, 2025.
He added that parliament could still settle the issue as the High Court has not issued any stay order.
The president promulgated the highest number of ordinances — 17 — related to the Law and Justice Division. The key ordinances include the Supreme Court Judges Appointment Ordinance, Supreme Court Secretariat Ordinances, 2025, International Crimes Tribunal ordinances, amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Civil Courts Amendment Ordinance.
Under Article 93(4) of the constitution, every ordinance promulgated while parliament is dissolved must be laid before it as soon as possible after it is reconstituted.
On March 3, the High Court asked the government to explain within four weeks why Section 3 and the Schedule of the Referendum Ordinance, 2025 and the July National Charter (Constitution Reform) Implementation Order, 2025 should not be declared constitutionally invalid.
Section 3 of the ordinance sets out the questions placed on the ballot for the referendum held along with the February 12 general election.
Voters were asked whether they supported the July National Charter and the constitutional reform measures included in it.
The proposal was approved, as the ‘Yes’ vote received a majority support.
The first question seeks public approval for forming a caretaker government, reconstituting the Election Commission and other constitutional bodies during the election period under the framework outlined in the July National Charter.
The second proposal concerns restructuring the existing Jatiya Sangsad into a bicameral legislature.
It proposes a 100-member upper house to be formed through proportional representation based on votes received by political parties in the 13th Jatiya Sangsad elections.
Any constitutional amendment would require approval by a majority in the upper house.
The third question asks whether the winning political parties should be legally bound to implement the 30 agreed reform proposals included in the July Charter.
These proposals include increasing women’s representation in the Jatiya Sangsad, electing the deputy speaker and four parliamentary standing committee chairpersons from the opposition, limiting the prime minister’s tenure, strengthening the president’s powers, expanding fundamental rights, ensuring judicial independence and reinforcing local government institutions.
The fourth question seeks public support for implementing other reform measures outlined in the July Charter in line with commitments made by political parties.
The bench of Justice Razik-Al-Jalil and Justice Md Anowarul Islam questioned the constitutionality of the Referendum Ordinance and the July National Charter (constitution reform) Order after hearing a public interest litigation filed by Bangladesh Nationalist Party supporter and lawyer Chowdhury Md Redwan-E-Khuda on February 23, 2026.
After hearing another writ petition filed by lawyer Gazi Md Mahbub Alam, a member of the BNP-backed Jatiyatabadi Ainjibi Forum, the High Court asked the authorities to explain within four weeks why the July National Charter (Constitution Reform) Implementation Order should not be declared unconstitutional.
The court also questioned the legality of a letter issued on February 16, 2026 by the Parliament Secretariat secretary under the implementation order, asking members of the 13th JS to take oath administered by the chief election commissioner as members of the Constitution Reform Council.
In addition, the bench sought an explanation as to why the oath administered by the CEC to certain MPs belonging to the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami and the National Citizen Party should not be declared unconstitutional and beyond the constitutional authority.
The Cabinet Division secretary, law, justice and parliamentary affairs secretary, Parliament Secretariat secretary and Prime Minister Office principal secretary were asked to respond to the rule within four weeks
