In 1994 when BNP was in power, a by-election in Magura was rigged in favour of the ruling party candidate.
That election prompted the then opposition Awami League to wage a movement to introduce the caretaker government system to ensure free and fair general elections.
The Magura by-election was fixed so flagrantly that it soon became a byword for rigging. To this day, people refer to it to assess the extent of rigging in any polls since the restoration of democracy in 1991.
After the Magura election, AL and its allies began mobilising public support for their demand for a caretaker government provision in the constitution. They argued that the general elections would not be free and fair unless held under a non-partisan government.
The movement gained momentum after the Mirpur by-election, another controversial election during that BNP rule (1991-1996).
Though the demand for the caretaker provision became popular, the BNP government ignored it and held a farcical general election on February 15, 1996.
Immediately after the stage-managed election boycotted by AL and other major political parties, a parliament session was convened, but it lasted only 11 days.
In March that year, BNP finally introduced the caretaker government system in the constitution, giving in to a fierce movement by the opposition.
Five years before the caretaker system came into force, an interim government led by the then chief justice Shahabuddin Ahmed oversaw a national election after the fall of dictator HM Ershad in 1990.
Even after that election, which was widely appreciated at home and abroad, AL alleged that “Sukhkho Karchupi” (subtle rigging) had been employed to have BNP in power.
In last 15 years, three national elections have been held under the caretaker government system. After each of those elections, the defeated party questioned the administration's role and rejected the results, while the winning party was effusive in its praise for the way the election was conducted.
Observers at home and abroad, however, lauded the elections in 1996, 2001 and 2008, irrespective of which party won.
When AL won the first election under the caretaker government system in 1996, archrival BNP and allies rejected the results alleging “Pukur Churi" (massive rigging). AL, on the other hand, described the polls as free and fair and asked the opponents to respect people's verdict.
In 2001, BNP won the election under the second caretaker government. It praised Justice Latifur Rahman-led administration for doing a good job. But AL dismissed the results as an outcome of "Sthulo Karchupi" (crude rigging).
In 2008, AL won a landslide in the third election under caretaker government. The reactions of the parties were as usual.
The controversy surrounding the 13th amendment, which deals with the caretaker government system in the charter, stems mainly from the provision that requires the immediate past chief justice to be the chief adviser--the head of the caretaker government.
In 2006, towards the end of the last BNP-Jamaat rule, the row between the ruling and opposition parties grew intense when the government raised the retirement age of the Supreme Court judges to ensure Justice KM Hasan take the helm of the next caretaker administration.
The move pitched the country into a deep political turmoil and eventually delayed the elections by two years.
Riled, the then opposition parties led by AL waged a movement saying they would not accept KM Hasan as chief adviser since he was involved with BNP in the past.
Justice Hasan, however, declined to be the chief adviser when the time came. Instead of exploring the other constitutional avenues to find a caretaker admin chief, the then president Iajuddin Ahmed appointed himself as chief adviser.
AL and allies refused to participate in the polls slated for January 22, 2007. Ten days before the election day, Iajuddin imposed a state of emergency and appointed Fakhruddin Ahmed to replace him as chief adviser.
Fakhruddin-led government, which ruled the country for two years, held the ninth parliamentary election in December 2008.
Some of its activities during the two years laid a new layer on the controversy over the caretaker government system.
Observers have long criticised the provision for appointing former chief justice as caretaker government head. They likened it to holding out carrots for the judges of the apex court.
They feared the provision may induce the judges to work in favour of a political government.
Besides, they noted, it leaves room for superseding of judges, as the party in power would want to ensure its favoured person become chief adviser of the next caretaker government.
Against the backdrop of some controversies, questions arose whether the nation should do away with the system.
Back in 2000, a petition was filed with the High Court challenging the legality of the caretaker provision. Four years later, the HC declared the system legal, and in May this year, the Appellate Division of the SC declared it illegal.
Though the top court observed that the next two parliamentary elections can be held under the caretaker system, the ruling AL yesterday abolished the caretaker provision by introducing the 15th amendment to the constitution.