134 to be noted that in a democratic country and under a written constitution, an amendment is made by the Parliament and not by the Law Minister. Admittedly a constitution amendment committee was constituted and the said committee discussed with various segments of the people including the constitutional experts. The committee took one year in finalising the amendment and therefore, it is not correct to say that this omission was unintentional. It is contended by learned Attorney General, learned Additional Attorney General and Mr. Ajmalul Hossain that in the Fifth Amendment case, there was condonation of clauses (2) to (7) of article 96 and in the condoned review those petition, this provisions in court provisionally order to avoid disastrous consequence, and therefore, this provision has neither been acquiesced by the Parliament nor by this court. On the other hand, Mr. Manzill Murshid and other learned Amici submitted that this court in the Fifth Amendment case has approved clauses (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) of article 96 substituted