The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court on Monday began hearing a group of appeals challenging the legality of the 15th amendment to the Constitution.

A four-member bench led by Chief Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury heard the appeals and adjourned the proceedings until Tuesday morning.

Senior lawyer Sharif Bhuiyan, appearing for Sushashoner Jonno Nagorik, began presenting arguments. He is expected to conclude his submissions on Tuesday. He argued that the court should settle all constitutional issues arising from the 15th amendment to strengthen constitutional democracy.

Shujan filed its leave-to-appeal petition on November 3, 2025, contending that the High Court should have declared the entire 15th amendment unconstitutional instead of striking down only parts of it. The organisation listed 19 grounds in support of its appeal.

Senior lawyer Ahsanul Karim is scheduled to represent the government during the hearing.

The court will also hear arguments from lawyers representing the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Bangladesh Jamaat e Islami, main opposition in parliament.

On November 15, 2025, the Appellate Division granted Shujan leave to appeal against a High Court verdict that had restored only the election-time non-party caretaker government system by declaring parts of the 15th amendment unconstitutional.

The High Court verdict was delivered on December 17, 2024, by a bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury while disposing of a writ petition filed by Shujan and its secretary, Badiul Alam Majumder.

In its judgment, the High Court struck down Article 58A and Chapter IIA of the Constitution, thereby restoring the constitutional framework for a non-party caretaker government during parliamentary elections.

However, the court declined to rule on several other provisions inserted through the 15th amendment. It observed that the validity of those provisions should be considered by future parliaments in accordance with constitutional and legal principles.

In its appeal, Shujan argued that the High Court erred by limiting its decision to the caretaker government provisions and failing to declare the remaining provisions of the 15th amendment unconstitutional.