July National Charter: Contents, Referendum, Implementation and Legal Status in 2026

The July National Charter: origins and the 2025 consensus process

The July National Charter is a wide-ranging package of constitutional, electoral and institutional reform proposals. Negotiated in 2025 between the interim government's National Consensus Commission and more than thirty political parties, signed on 17 October 2025, and put to voters in a referendum alongside the general election of 12 February 2026, it proposes changes to almost every branch of the state: a bicameral parliament, a ten-year limit on the prime minister's tenure, a restored caretaker system, new appointment processes for constitutional bodies and stronger judicial independence.[1] [2] [5]

Eight months after the referendum, how the charter becomes law remains contested. The governing party and the main opposition agree that the charter should be implemented, but disagree on the route, on the weight of the notes of dissent attached to it and on how a new upper house should be composed, and the High Court Division has been asked to rule on the legality of the instruments behind the referendum. This explainer sets out what the charter contains, how the implementation process was designed, what has happened since February 2026, the positions of the main actors and the legal questions that remain open. It takes no position on the political dispute.

Summary: The July National Charter 2025 contains 84 reform proposals agreed, in varying degrees, by political parties through the National Consensus Commission. A presidential implementation order of 13 November 2025 put the charter's constitutional proposals to a referendum on 12 February 2026, which returned a majority Yes vote and envisaged a Constitution Reform Council of newly elected MPs. That council has not been formed; the government is instead pursuing amendments through a special parliamentary committee, an approach the main opposition rejects.

Key point: The charter is a political agreement, not a statute. Its proposals change the law only when they are enacted, either as constitutional amendments or as ordinary legislation and rules. Until then, the Constitution as it stands, and the courts' reading of it, continue to govern.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

The July National Charter: origins and the 2025 consensus process

After the change of government in August 2024, the interim administration established six reform commissions, covering the constitution, the electoral system, the judiciary, the police, public administration and anti-corruption.[9] To turn their recommendations into a negotiated programme, the government issued a gazette notification on 12 February 2025 forming a seven-member National Consensus Commission, to begin work on 15 February 2025 with an initial six-month tenure.[1]

The Chief Adviser, Professor Muhammad Yunus, chaired the commission, with Professor Ali Riaz, head of the Constitution Reform Commission, as vice-chair. Its other members were the chairs or members of the other reform commissions: Abdul Muyeed Chowdhury, Safar Raj Hossain, Dr Badiul Alam Majumdar, former Chief Justice Md Emdadul Haque and Dr Iftekharuzzaman. Its mandate was to review the reform commissions' recommendations and to hold dialogue with political parties and other stakeholders to build national consensus before the election.[1]

From 166 proposals to 84

The reform commissions' recommendations were distilled into 166 proposals for discussion. The commission met 32 parties in the first phase of dialogue and 30 in the second, and the final text contains 84 reform proposals, many of them accompanied by notes of dissent recording a party's disagreement.[2] Some subjects covered by the second-phase reform commissions, including labour, media, local government, women's affairs and health, were not taken up in the consensus talks.[2]

The charter therefore records three kinds of outcome: proposals with full consensus, proposals agreed by a majority with recorded dissent, and statements of principle to be developed later. That distinction is central to the later dispute over implementation, because parties differ on whether a proposal carrying a note of dissent binds the dissenting party.

What the July National Charter proposes

The July National Charter covers both constitutional change and reforms that can be delivered through ordinary laws, rules and executive action. The principal constitutional proposals, as described in contemporaneous analysis of the final text, are set out below.[2] [9]

Parliament and the executive

• Bicameral parliament: a new 100-member upper house, with dissent recorded on how its seats should be allocated and on whether both chambers must approve amendments and treaties.
• Prime ministerial tenure: a maximum of ten years in office.
• Article 70: MPs would be free to vote independently except on the budget and confidence votes.
• Opposition roles: an opposition deputy speaker and opposition chairs of standing committees, including the Public Accounts Committee, in proportion to seats.
• Women's representation: a gradual increase in reserved seats to 100, with the method of election left undecided.

Caretaker government, elections and constitutional bodies

• Caretaker government: the chief adviser to be chosen by a selection committee that includes the prime minister and the leader of the opposition.
• Election Commission: commissioners appointed by a five-member committee including the prime minister, the opposition leader and an Appellate Division judge.
• Presidential appointments: the President to appoint the heads of bodies such as the National Human Rights Commission, Information Commission, Press Council and Law Commission without the prime minister's advice; proposals extending this to the Bangladesh Bank governor and the Energy Regulatory Commission attracted dissent.
• Other selection committees: proposals for the Public Service Commission, Anti-Corruption Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General and an Ombudsman attracted dissent.

The judiciary

The charter records agreement on a separate Supreme Court secretariat with financial autonomy to manage the promotion, transfer and discipline of subordinate judges, an independent judicial appointments commission led by the Chief Justice, and appointment of the Chief Justice from among the most senior Appellate Division judges.[2] Our guide to judicial appointments in Bangladesh explains the current constitutional framework.

Rights and principles

The charter also refers to expanded fundamental rights without specifying their content, and proposals on the Constitution's fundamental principles drew dissent from several smaller parties, including Gano Forum, JSD and the Communist Party of Bangladesh.[2] Our overview of fundamental rights in Bangladesh sets out the existing guarantees.

Signing on 17 October 2025

The July National Charter was signed on 17 October 2025 at the South Plaza of the Parliament complex in Dhaka.[6] [7] Twenty-four parties endorsed it at the ceremony.[4] [9] Several parties did not sign, citing objections that included changes to the Constitution's fundamental principles, the historical framing of the text, a commitment not to challenge the charter in court and the lack of clarity over its legal basis and implementation.[2]

The National Citizen Party's position

The National Citizen Party did not attend the signing. Its representatives said it withheld its signature because of the unresolved status of the notes of dissent and the absence of assurance on implementation, and set three conditions: publication of the draft implementation order before signing, with the order issued by the Chief Adviser; that a Yes vote in a referendum should override notes of dissent; and that the next parliament should carry out constitutional reform under its own authority. By January 2026 the party was campaigning for a Yes vote while still not having signed.[6] By September 2026, the government's count of signatories stood at 26 parties and alliances.[13]

The implementation order and the referendum

On 13 November 2025 the President issued the July National Charter (Constitutional Reform) Implementation Order 2025.[6] In an address the same day, the Chief Adviser announced that the referendum would be held on the same day as the parliamentary election and set out the question voters would answer.[3]

The question on the ballot

Voters were asked whether they approved the implementation order and the constitutional reform proposals recorded in the charter, summarised in four parts:[3]

• the caretaker government, the Election Commission and other constitutional bodies to be formed through the process set out in the charter;
• a bicameral parliament with a 100-member upper house, whose majority approval would be required for constitutional amendments;
• thirty consensus reforms, including more women in parliament, opposition deputy speaker and committee chairs, prime ministerial term limits, expanded presidential powers, wider fundamental rights, judicial independence and stronger local government, to bind the parties that win the election; and
• the charter's other reforms to be implemented according to the parties' commitments.

A single Yes or No covered all four parts.[3] [4] The referendum covered 48 of the charter's 84 proposals.[6]

The Constitution Reform Council

Under the scheme announced, if Yes won, the representatives elected at the general election would form a Constitution Reform Council, serving at the same time as members of parliament, and the council would complete the constitutional amendments within 180 working days of its first session. The upper house would then be formed within 30 working days after the amendments were completed, with seats allocated in proportion to parties' national vote shares.[3] International IDEA reported that an earlier automatic-enactment clause, which would have applied if the council did not act within the deadline, was removed from the final design, leaving the consequences of non-enactment unclear.[4]

The result

The Election Commission announced on 13 February 2026 that Yes had received 48,074,429 votes and No 22,565,627, on a turnout of 60.26 per cent across 299 constituencies.[5] Citing the Commission's gazette, Jamaat-e-Islami's secretary general later put the Yes share at 68.59 per cent of valid votes.[13] The election returned a BNP-led majority; the BNP-led alliance won 212 seats and the Jamaat-led alliance 77 of the 297 results first announced.[8]

After the election: the July National Charter in 2026

The oath dispute

The implementation order contemplated a second oath, binding elected members as members of the Constitution Reform Council. When parliament convened in February 2026, newly elected BNP MPs took the parliamentary oath but declined the second oath. BNP MP Salahuddin Ahmed said that none of them had been elected as members of the council, while reaffirming the party's commitment to implement the charter as a consensus document. Jamaat-e-Islami and the National Citizen Party criticised the decision and called for rapid implementation based on the referendum result. Because more than two-thirds of MPs did not take the second oath, the council was not formed.[8]

The BNP's legal argument

The BNP's position, as reported, is that the Constitution Reform Council lacks constitutional recognition and that structural changes must follow the Constitution's own amendment procedure or risk being struck down by the courts.[8] In March 2026 Salahuddin Ahmed, by then Home Minister, said that respecting a referendum outcome would first require parliamentary legislation and then incorporation into the Constitution, that the Third Schedule should specify any oath and who administers it, and that whether proper procedure was followed was a matter for the Supreme Court.[12]

The opposition's argument

Jamaat-e-Islami, the National Citizen Party and their allies argue that the referendum approved a specific process, with the Constitution Reform Council acting first, and that bypassing it departs from the mandate. A Jamaat leader has argued that reforms passed through the council would be more durable than ordinary amendments, noting that courts have previously struck down constitutional amendments.[7] The National Citizen Party's member secretary has described the government's approach as a betrayal of the charter, while the BNP maintains that it will implement the charter to the letter.[7]

The special parliamentary committee

The BNP proposed a parliamentary route on 29 April, and a 12-member special parliamentary committee on amending the Constitution was formed on 13 July 2026 after opposition parties declined to nominate members. It is chaired by the Home Minister and aims to report to parliament by December 2026. At its second meeting in September, the minister said that 15 of the 26 signatory parties and alliances had attended in person, while the Jamaat-led 11-party alliance declined to take part.[13]

The committee is considering the charter alongside the BNP's election manifesto. Reported proposals include a ten-year limit on prime ministerial tenure, a 100-member upper house allocated by lower-house seat share, an amended Article 70 with exceptions including constitutional amendments and national security, opposition deputy speakers and committee chairs, Supreme Court control over subordinate judges' service terms, a police commission and an Ombudsman, as well as manifesto items that are not in the charter, such as restoring a reference to faith in Almighty Allah among the state principles and allowing the prime minister to remain party chief.[14]

Where the parties differ

The disagreements are concentrated on a small number of issues, set out neutrally in the table below. On a phone, scroll it sideways.

The upper house

The most consequential dispute concerns how the 100 upper-house seats are filled. Under the referendum question, seats would follow parties' national vote shares; the BNP favours allocation by lower-house seats.[3] [14] Analysis published by The Business Standard estimated that seat-based allocation could give the BNP-led alliance about 70 of the 100 seats, compared with closer to 50 under proportional representation.[11] Because the upper house would have to approve constitutional amendments, the method decides how difficult future amendments would be.

The weight of notes of dissent

Legal commentators have offered different readings. One Dhaka University academic has suggested that, because the first referendum question refers to the charter as signed on 17 October 2025, the BNP can point to the notes of dissent appended to that document, while the second question on the upper house does not contain that reference.[11] Election expert Dr Badiul Alam Majumdar has argued that a note of dissent records a minority view that cannot override a collective commitment, while the BNP's stated position is that consensus, not majority, determines which provisions bind it.[11]

Other points of difference

The BNP and allies objected to the charter's bar on a prime minister also leading a party, and the BNP and several parties objected to involving Appellate Division and High Court judges in the second stage of selecting a caretaker chief. On the Chief Justice, the BNP favours appointment from the two most senior Appellate Division judges rather than the most senior.[14]

Legal status of the July National Charter

Three distinct legal questions arise, and they should not be conflated.

Is the charter itself law?

The charter is a signed political agreement. A Dhaka University law professor quoted by The Business Standard described it as not being a law and the implementation order as essentially an executive order of the President.[11] Its proposals acquire legal force only as and when they are enacted through constitutional amendment, legislation or subordinate instruments. Reporting on the special committee's work states that most reforms not requiring constitutional amendment have already been implemented through laws, ordinances, rules or executive orders.[13]

Were the implementation order and referendum lawful?

Writ petitions filed by two Supreme Court lawyers challenged the implementation order, section 3 and the schedule of the Referendum Ordinance, and, in one petition, a 16 February 2026 letter on the Constitution Reform Council oath. The petitioners argued that the Constitution makes no provision for the referendum or the charter. On 3 March 2026 a High Court Division bench of Justice Razik-Al-Jalil and Justice Md Anwarul Islam Shaheen issued a rule asking why the challenged provisions should not be declared unconstitutional. The state, the National Citizen Party and Jamaat-e-Islami were represented at the hearing.[10] We have not identified a reported final decision on the rule.

The Blavatnik School of Government noted that the legal standing of the referendum is disputed because the Constitution does not clearly provide for one, and that the Yes vote approved both the implementation order and the charter even though the two documents differ in their treatment of notes of dissent.[9] Our guides to writ petitions and judicial review in Bangladesh explain how such challenges proceed.

What binds the current parliament?

Whatever the political force of the referendum, amendments to the Constitution must in practice pass through a procedure the courts will accept. That is the common ground beneath the dispute: the BNP argues that only the existing amendment procedure is safe, while the opposition argues that the referendum created a mandate and a process that parliament should follow, and that reforms passed through it would be more durable. As of October 2026, leaders of smaller signatory parties noted that parliament had not yet completed 180 working days, and one expressed hope that reforms could still be incorporated through an Eighteenth Amendment in the winter session.[7]

Key terms explained

Much of the public debate turns on a handful of terms that are used loosely. The definitions below follow the instruments and reporting cited in this explainer.

• July National Charter: the signed political agreement of 17 October 2025 containing 84 reform proposals, with notes of dissent recorded against some of them.[2]
• Notes of dissent: written reservations by individual parties on specific proposals, recorded in the charter itself. Their effect after a Yes vote is one of the central points of disagreement.[6] [11]
• Implementation order: the presidential order of 13 November 2025 that set out the referendum question and the mechanism for implementing the charter's constitutional proposals.[3] [6]
• Referendum Ordinance: the ordinance under which the referendum was conducted, parts of which are challenged in the High Court Division.[10]
• Constitution Reform Council: the body of elected representatives, sitting concurrently as MPs, that was to complete the constitutional amendments within 180 working days of its first session.[3]
• Upper house: the proposed second chamber of 100 members, to be formed after the amendments are completed, whose method of composition is disputed.[3] [14]
• Special parliamentary committee: the 12-member committee of the Jatiya Sangsad, chaired by the Home Minister, preparing constitutional amendments through the ordinary legislative route.[13]

Keeping these instruments distinct matters in practice. A court could, for example, consider the implementation order or the Referendum Ordinance without passing judgment on the charter's proposals, and parliament could enact individual proposals whatever view is ultimately taken of the referendum mechanism. Those who follow the debate should identify which instrument a statement or challenge is directed at before drawing conclusions from it.

How the implementation pathway was designed

The sequence below summarises the process as designed and as it has unfolded so far.

Swipe or scroll →

The institutions involved at each stage are summarised below.

Why the July National Charter matters for business and the rule of law

For companies and investors, the July National Charter matters less for any single proposal than for the institutional settlement it may produce. Several proposals bear directly on the legal environment: appointment processes for constitutional bodies and regulators, the independence and administration of the judiciary, the freedom of MPs to vote against their party, and the stability that a stronger amendment threshold would give to constitutional rules.[2]

Regulators and appointments

Proposals to change who appoints the heads of bodies such as the Energy Regulatory Commission, and the dissent on extending presidential appointment to the Bangladesh Bank governor, would affect regulators whose decisions shape licensing, tariffs and monetary policy.[2] [14] Businesses in regulated sectors should follow the final drafting of these provisions closely.

Courts and dispute resolution

Judicial reforms, including a Supreme Court secretariat and changes to the management of subordinate judges, would change how the courts that hear commercial cases are administered.[2] [14] Any change will take time to implement, and existing procedure continues to apply to pending matters.

Legal certainty during the transition

The open questions, the route to amendment, the High Court rule and the composition of the upper house, create a period in which some constitutional arrangements may change. For most commercial activity the practical effect is limited: contracts, licences and statutory rights continue unaffected unless and until a specific law changes them. Businesses with exposure to public law, such as government contracts, regulatory approvals or pending writ proceedings, should monitor developments and build appropriate change-in-law provisions into long-term agreements. Our overview of constitutional law in Bangladesh and our constitutional and writ litigation practice cover these issues.

What to watch next

• The special committee's report: due to parliament by December 2026, followed by a drafting stage at the Law Ministry.[13]
• An amendment bill: its content, especially on the upper house, caretaker system and appointments, and whether opposition parties take part.
• The High Court rule: any decision on the legality of the implementation order and the Referendum Ordinance, and any appeal.[10]
• The 180-working-day question: whether a Constitution Reform Council is constituted while that period is still running.[7]
• Legislative reforms: laws and rules implementing charter proposals that do not require constitutional amendment.

For advice on how constitutional and public-law changes affect a specific project, licence or dispute, contact TRW in Dhaka.

Frequently asked questions

What is the July National Charter?

A political agreement on constitutional, electoral, judicial and administrative reform, negotiated through the National Consensus Commission in 2025 and signed on 17 October 2025. It contains 84 reform proposals.[2]

Who led the National Consensus Commission?

The Chief Adviser, Professor Muhammad Yunus, chaired it, with Professor Ali Riaz as vice-chair. It was formed by gazette on 12 February 2025.[1]

How many parties signed the charter?

Twenty-four parties signed on 17 October 2025. By September 2026 the government counted 26 parties and alliances as signatories.[4] [13]

What did the referendum ask?

Whether voters approved the implementation order and the charter's constitutional proposals, summarised in four parts covering constitutional bodies, a 100-member upper house, thirty consensus reforms and the remaining reforms, with one Yes or No answer.[3]

What was the referendum result?

The Election Commission reported 48,074,429 Yes votes and 22,565,627 No votes on a 60.26 per cent turnout.[5]

What is the Constitution Reform Council?

A body of newly elected representatives, serving simultaneously as MPs, that was to complete constitutional amendments within 180 working days of its first session if Yes won.[3]

Has the Constitution Reform Council been formed?

No. BNP MPs declined the second oath in February 2026, so the council was not formed. The government formed a special parliamentary committee instead.[8] [13]

Is the charter legally binding?

The charter is a political agreement; its proposals take legal effect only when enacted. The legal force of the referendum and implementation order is disputed and has been challenged in the High Court Division.[9] [10] [11]

Why is the upper house controversial?

The referendum question provides for seats by national vote share, while the BNP favours allocation by lower-house seats. The method affects party strength in a chamber that would approve constitutional amendments.[3] [11]

What happens next?

The special parliamentary committee aims to report by December 2026, after which an amendment bill is expected. The High Court rule on the implementation order also remains to be decided.[10] [13]