Sixteenth Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act 2014
Declared void by the High Court Division on 5 May 2016, upheld by the Appellate Division on 3 July 2017. The review was disposed of on 20 October 2024, so judges are again removed through the Supreme Judicial Council. bdlaws still prints the 2014 text.
Before 2014 a judge could be removed only after the Supreme Judicial Council, made up of the Chief Justice and the next two senior Appellate Division judges, inquired and reported misconduct or incapacity to the President.
The Tenth Parliament passed the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Bill on 17 September 2014, and the President assented about five days later, as reported. It became Act XIII of 2014.
New clauses (2) to (4) of Article 96 allowed removal by order of the President on a resolution backed by two-thirds of all MPs, for proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Parliament was to set the inquiry procedure by law.
Supreme Court lawyers filed a writ on 5 November 2014 and a rule was issued on 9 November 2014. On 5 May 2016 the High Court Division, by majority, declared the amendment void as contrary to the independence of the judiciary.
On 3 July 2017 the Appellate Division, led by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, dismissed the government's appeal and upheld the High Court Division. The full judgment was released on 1 August 2017.
On 20 October 2024 a six-member bench led by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed disposed of the state's review petition with observations, leaving the 2017 judgment intact. The full review judgment was released on 5 June 2025.
In plain English
Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act 2014
The Sixteenth Amendment changed how Supreme Court judges can be removed. It replaced clauses (2) to (8) of Article 96, which gave the Supreme Judicial Council of the Chief Justice and the two senior Appellate Division judges the power to inquire into a judge's conduct, with three clauses giving the power to Parliament. A judge could be removed by the President on a resolution of at least two-thirds of all MPs for proved misbehaviour or incapacity, under a procedure to be set by law.
The courts held this threatened judicial independence and declared it void, and the Supreme Judicial Council is again the body that inquires into judges.
Background
The 1972 Constitution let Parliament remove judges by a two-thirds resolution. The Fourth Amendment of 1975 gave removal to the President, and a martial law proclamation of 1978, as reported, created the Supreme Judicial Council. The Fifteenth Amendment of 2011 kept the Council. In 2014 the government proposed returning removal to Parliament, describing this as a restoration of the 1972 text, while critics argued that it gave the governing majority leverage over the judiciary. Parliament passed the Bill on 17 September 2014 without a vote against it, as reported.
What changed
What the Sixteenth Amendment changed, article by article
Article 96
Sixteenth AmendmentClauses (2) to (8): a Judge shall not be removed except under this article; the Supreme Judicial Council inquires into a Judge's capacity or conduct and reports to the President, who may remove the Judge; the Council also prescribes a code of conduct.
(2) A Judge shall not be removed except by an order of the President passed pursuant to a resolution of Parliament supported by not less than two-thirds of all members, on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. (3) Parliament may by law regulate the procedure. (4) A Judge may resign.
Section 2 substituted clauses (2), (3) and (4) for clauses (2) to (8). Declared void; bdlaws still prints the 2014 clauses.
What happened next
What happened to the Sixteenth Amendment next
Supreme Court lawyers challenged the amendment in November 2014, and on 5 May 2016 a special bench of the High Court Division declared it void by majority. The government appealed, and on 3 July 2017 the Appellate Division, led by Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha, upheld that ruling, restoring the Supreme Judicial Council provisions. The state's review petition was disposed of with observations on 20 October 2024, leaving the 2017 judgment intact, and the full review judgment was released on 5 June 2025.
Since then the President has removed High Court judges on the Council's recommendation under Article 96(6), on 21 May 2025 and 5 November 2025, as reported. bdlaws still prints the 2014 clauses.
Timeline
- Bill passed by the Tenth Parliament
- Presidential assent, as reported
- Writ petition filed by Supreme Court lawyers
- High Court Division declares the amendment void, by majority
- Appellate Division dismisses the government's appeal
- Full Appellate Division judgment released
- Review petition disposed of with observations
- Full review judgment released
Landmark cases
How the courts have read the Sixteenth Amendment
High Court Division · 2016
Advocate Asaduzzaman Siddiqui and others v Bangladesh (writ petition against the Sixteenth Amendment)
On 5 May 2016 a special bench, by majority, declared the Sixteenth Amendment void as contrary to the independence of the judiciary.
Appellate Division · 2017
Government of Bangladesh v Advocate Asaduzzaman Siddiqui (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2017)
Judgment of 3 July 2017 dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court Division, so that Parliament cannot remove Supreme Court judges. Full judgment released 1 August 2017.
Appellate Division · 2024
Review of the Sixteenth Amendment judgment
On 20 October 2024 a six-member bench led by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed disposed of the review petition with observations, leaving the 2017 judgment intact and the Supreme Judicial Council in place. Full judgment released 5 June 2025.
Questions
Sixteenth Amendment: frequently asked questions
What did the Sixteenth Amendment do?
It gave Parliament the power to remove Supreme Court judges. A judge could be removed by the President on a resolution passed by at least two-thirds of all MPs for proved misbehaviour or incapacity, replacing the inquiry by the Supreme Judicial Council.
Is the Sixteenth Amendment valid?
No. The High Court Division declared it void in 2016 and the Appellate Division upheld that in 2017. The state's review petition was disposed of on 20 October 2024, leaving the 2017 judgment intact, so judges are removed through the Supreme Judicial Council.
Why does bdlaws still show parliamentary removal?
The official online text has not been updated for the judgments. Article 96 on bdlaws still prints the 2014 clauses (2) to (4), but the courts apply the Supreme Judicial Council provisions, and the President has removed judges on the Council's recommendation since 2025.
Sources
- Laws of Bangladesh: Constitution, Article 96 (footnote on section 2 of Act XIII of 2014)
- The Daily Star: President signs 16th amendment bill (September 2014)
- The Business Standard: Review hearing in 16th Amendment case
- Dhaka Tribune: Appellate Division disposes of 16th Amendment review (20 October 2024)
- Prothom Alo English: Full review judgment on the 16th Amendment released (5 June 2025)
- Dhaka Tribune: SC: Judges' independence was at stake under 16th Amendment (June 2025)
- Jago News: Justice Khurshid removed from office under Article 96(6) (5 November 2025)
This guide explains the Constitution for general understanding. It is not legal advice. Constitutional reform proposals under discussion in 2026 are described as proposals until enacted.
Constitutional and writ practice
Need to rely on the Sixteenth Amendment?
Our lawyers advise on writ petitions, fundamental rights and public law before the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.