Instead of investigating whether judges can invalidate 'unconstitutional constitutional amendments', this article seeks to inquire into how far a court can go in invaliding an amendment or how it interprets the constitution in that exercise. This article analyzes the recent decision of the High Court Division (HCD) in relation to the case of Asaduzzaman Siddiqui and others v. Bangladesh (2016), in which a majority declared unconstitutional the sixteenth amendment to the Constitution that restored an original constitutional scheme regarding the removal of Supreme Court judges. As the decision is now on appeal before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, this article argues that the court's decision in Siddiqui cannot be taken as an authority on the interpretations of the constitutional issues involved.