Judicial Review in Bangladesh: Grounds, Writs and Remedies

Judicial review Bangladesh: grounds, bars and remedies in 2026

Judicial review Bangladesh law recognises is the power of the High Court Division to test whether a minister, regulator, statutory body or tribunal acted within the law, and whether Parliament itself stayed within the Constitution. It is the principal check on public power in the country, and in 2026 it has been unusually visible: the courts have revisited the caretaker system and the Fifteenth Amendment, while thousands of ordinary petitions challenge licence cancellations, dismissals, tender decisions, tax demands and detention orders.

This guide concentrates on what decides those cases: the grounds on which an administrative decision can be quashed, how the courts have treated legitimate expectation and proportionality, the alternative remedy bar and the constitutional ouster clauses, and the separate rules that govern review of legislation and of constitutional amendments. Filing mechanics, stays and appeals are covered in our companion guides on the writ petition and the stay order; this article supplies the substantive law that a petition must be built on.

Summary: The High Court Division reviews public action under Article 102 of the Constitution. A decision can be set aside for illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety (chiefly breach of natural justice), mala fides or malice in law, and for defeating a legitimate expectation; proportionality is gaining ground but is not yet an independent ground. Legislation is void to the extent it breaches the Constitution or fundamental rights, and constitutional amendments remain open to challenge under the basic structure doctrine, as the 2024 to 2026 caretaker and Fifteenth Amendment judgments show.

Key point: Judicial review in Bangladesh tests how a decision was made, not whether it was the best decision. Petitions win when they identify a legal defect in the decision-making process, prove it from documents, and show why no other statutory remedy is equally efficacious.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

The constitutional basis of judicial review Bangladesh courts exercise

The jurisdiction rests on three linked provisions. Article 7 declares that all powers in the Republic belong to the people, that their exercise is effected only under and by the authority of the Constitution, and that the Constitution is the supreme law, so that any other inconsistent law is void to the extent of the inconsistency.[1] Article 26 applies the same rule to fundamental rights: existing laws inconsistent with Part III became void on commencement, and the State must not make any law inconsistent with it.[1] Article 102 supplies the machinery, and Article 44 guarantees the right to move the High Court Division under Article 102(1) to enforce fundamental rights.[1]

Article 102(1) and Article 102(2)

Article 102(1) lets the High Court Division, on the application of any person aggrieved, give directions or orders to any person or authority, including one performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Republic, to enforce Part III rights.

Article 102(2) is the classic review jurisdiction. If satisfied that no other equally efficacious remedy is provided by law, the court may direct a public functionary or local authority to refrain from doing what the law does not permit or to do what the law requires; declare that an act done or proceeding taken without lawful authority is of no legal effect; produce a detained person to test the legality of custody; or require the holder of a public office to show the authority under which the office is held.[1]

Administrative action and legislation: two different exercises

Judicial review Bangladesh lawyers bring falls into two families. Review of administrative action asks whether an executive decision was lawful, rational and fair; the remedy is usually to quash it and send the matter back. Review of legislation asks whether a statute, ordinance or constitutional amendment is consistent with the Constitution; the remedy is a declaration that the provision is void to the extent of the inconsistency. The grounds and consequences differ, and a petition that confuses the two tends to fail on both. The constitutional theory behind both is set out in our guide to constitutional law in Bangladesh.

What is open to judicial review in Bangladesh

Article 102(5) defines "person" to include a statutory public authority and any court or tribunal, other than courts or tribunals under laws relating to the defence services or a disciplined force, and administrative tribunals to which Article 117 applies.[1] Ministries, regulators, city corporations, public universities, statutory boards and lower courts are all reviewable. Which corporatised enterprises and banks remain within reach is discussed in our writ petition guide.

Government contracts

In Government of Bangladesh v Golam Mustafa, decided on 31 January 2023 and reported at 19 SCOB [2024] AD 155, the Appellate Division reaffirmed that a writ lies in contractual matters only in limited cases: where the government contracts in its sovereign capacity, where the contract arises from a statutory duty or public function, or where it is a statutory contract. Internal correspondence between ministries about extra purchases created no binding contract with the publisher, and an attempt to buy goods without tender and lawful approval could not be validated through Article 102.[2]

Disputed questions of fact

The same judgment restated a rule that ends many petitions early: writ jurisdiction cannot resolve disputed questions of fact that require evidence.[2] If the case depends on which witness is telling the truth, a civil suit or tribunal is the proper forum.

Grounds of judicial review Bangladesh courts recognise

Bangladeshi courts draw on the English classification in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety), which the Appellate Division quoted in Golam Mustafa, alongside older certiorari categories such as want of jurisdiction, error on the face of the record and mala fides.[2] [10] The table summarises them; on a phone, scroll it sideways.

Illegality: acting without or beyond lawful authority

Illegality is the core of Article 102(2)(a)(ii), which allows the court to declare an act "done or taken without lawful authority" to be of no legal effect.[1] The decision-maker must have the power it claims and use it for the purpose the statute intends. Typical examples are an order by an officer with no delegated authority, a penalty the statute does not provide for, or a decision that misreads the governing provision.

Relevant and irrelevant considerations

A discretion is unlawfully exercised if the authority takes into account matters it should ignore or ignores matters it must weigh. In State v Registrar General, Supreme Court of Bangladesh, a suo motu rule decided on 14 November 2017, the High Court Division held that "exercise of discretion on extraneous facts is illegal", found that the author of an administrative letter had considered extraneous and irrelevant facts and abused its discretionary power, and treated the letter as amenable to judicial review even though it came from the Appellate Division's own office.[5]

Mala fides and malice in law

Mala fides, or malice in fact, means personal bad faith: a decision taken to injure, to favour, or out of spite. It must be specifically pleaded and proved. Malice in law is more useful in practice: it needs no personal ill will and is established where power is used for a purpose other than the one for which it was conferred. The High Court Division in Mosarrof Hosen v Artha Rin Adalat No 1, Dhaka, decided on 3 April 2023, listed both mala fides and malice in law among the defects that justify intervention even where another remedy exists.[10]

Irrationality and arbitrariness

Irrationality, often described as Wednesbury unreasonableness, covers a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached it. Bangladeshi judgments more often speak of arbitrariness, which links the ground to equality before the law under Article 27. In Golam Mustafa the Appellate Division put the threshold plainly: courts intervene only where a decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, an abuse of power or in breach of natural justice.[2] It succeeds most often where the authority gives no reasons, treats similarly placed people differently, or departs from its own published criteria.

Procedural impropriety and natural justice

The right to be heard under the rules of natural justice is the most frequently successful ground. In Md Shamsujjaman v Bangladesh, decided on 14 November 2018, the High Court Division quashed the life expulsion of ten university students because the show cause notices were vague, the inquiry report was never served and no personal hearing was held. It held that failure to comply with natural justice "leads to arbitrariness, which in turn, vitiates the impugned order", and that a show cause notice is "not a technical requirement or an idle ceremony".[3]

The principle remains current. On 27 November 2025, in Abdul Malek v Government of Bangladesh, the High Court Division declared without lawful authority a 2016 gazette notification cancelling a freedom fighter's certificate on the strength of an intelligence report, without notice or hearing, and directed the government to resume his honorarium. The court held that a vested privilege cannot be taken away without due process.[4] The rule against bias, the other limb of natural justice, applies equally: a decision-maker with a personal interest, or who has prejudged the issue, should not decide.

Error on the face of the record and no evidence

Two older certiorari grounds survive and are often decisive against courts and tribunals. An error apparent on the face of the record is a mistake of law visible without elaborate argument; a finding based on no evidence whatsoever is treated as an error of law rather than of fact. Both appear in Mosarrof Hosen, relying on the Appellate Division's decision in Fariduddin Mahmud v Md Saidur Rahman, 63 DLR (AD) 93.[10]

Legitimate expectation in judicial review Bangladesh practice

Legitimate expectation protects people who have arranged their affairs in reliance on what a public authority promised or consistently did. The Appellate Division gave the doctrine its fullest modern treatment in Golam Mustafa, holding that the expectation must rest on a commitment that can fairly be characterised as a promise, and that it may arise either from an express promise made on behalf of the authority or from a regular practice the claimant can reasonably expect to continue.[2]

The Appellate Division's guiding principles

Drawing on Mahmudul Islam's Constitutional Law of Bangladesh, the court set out principles it said should guide future cases. The statement or practice must be clear, unambiguous and intended to bind; it must come from the authority itself and be relevant to the decision; the claimant must have relied on it to his detriment. The expectation fails if it conflicts with a mandatory legal requirement, a statute or the public interest, or if it rests on an ultra vires policy.[2] On the facts, expectations built on internal departmental notes and inter-ministry letters did not qualify, and the High Court Division's order in the publisher's favour was set aside.[2]

What this means for businesses and employees

The doctrine is most useful where a published policy, advertisement, circular or consistent run of past decisions points to a specific outcome and the authority departs from it without reasons. It is weakest where the "promise" is an oral assurance or a letter between departments. Keep every written representation and record reliance as it happens. Even a successful legitimate expectation claim usually earns a direction to reconsider fairly rather than an order to deliver the promised result.

Proportionality: an emerging ground

Proportionality asks whether a measure pursues a legitimate aim, is suitable and necessary to achieve it, and strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the individual's rights. Bangladesh has not yet adopted it as a free-standing ground of review of administrative action. In Ekushey Television Ltd v Dr Chowdhury Mahmood Hasan, 55 DLR (AD) 26, the Appellate Division described proportionality as "absolutely a new concept to our jurisprudence" and declined to apply it, reasoning that it would require the court to weigh ends and means.[6]

Signs of movement

Later High Court Division decisions have edged closer. In Omer Ali v Government of Bangladesh, (2022) 30 BLT (HCD) 377, a contractor challenged the encashment of its security deposit after lights procured by the government proved ineffective in fog; the court stressed its duty as guardian of the Constitution to ensure that public money is not wasted, and commentators have read its comparison of the government's choice with the available alternatives as a proportionality-style analysis.[6] Where fundamental rights are restricted, Part III's "reasonable restrictions" formula already demands structured justification; see our guide to fundamental rights in Bangladesh.

Plead proportionality alongside irrationality or a fundamental rights ground, never on its own; framed as arbitrariness, the same arguments are far more likely to be engaged with.

Standing and the alternative remedy bar

Standing has been read generously since the Flood Action Plan case; the authorities are collected in our writ petition guide. Habeas corpus and quo warranto may be sought by any person.[1] The real threshold battle in judicial review Bangladesh petitions is usually the alternative remedy bar in Article 102(2), which confers jurisdiction only where "no other equally efficacious remedy is provided by law".[1]

Two Artha Rin Adalat cases compared

The rule's operation is best seen in two decisions on the same court. In Mosarrof Hosen (2023), the High Court Division held that the statutory remedies under the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 did not bar a writ where the ex parte decree breached sections 10 and 19(1) of that Act; it declared the decree of no legal effect and directed a fresh trial.[10]

In Ali Hossain v Judge, Artha Rin Adalat No 1, Dhaka, decided on 6 November 2025, a different bench discharged the rule as not maintainable: section 19 allowed an application to set aside an ex parte decree and section 41 an appeal, the decree was neither without jurisdiction nor coram non judice, and the petitioners had waited about twelve years and suppressed an earlier writ.[11]

How to get past the bar

The difference between the two outcomes is the nature of the defect. A writ survives an alternative remedy where the decision is void for want of jurisdiction, coram non judice, mala fide, based on no evidence, or in breach of natural justice or a fundamental right.[10] It fails where the complaint is an ordinary error that the statutory appeal can correct, or where the petitioner has sat on his rights. Plead the jurisdictional character of the defect in the first paragraph of the writ petition, explain why the statutory route cannot give complete relief, and disclose every earlier proceeding.

Statutory routes to exhaust first

In Shakwat Hossain Bhuiyan v Bangladesh, decided on 6 December 2016, the High Court Division held that the election-petition requirement in Article 125(b) did not bar a quo warranto where a disqualification had been suppressed and never examined by the election authorities, and the petitioner, not being a candidate, had no access to the election-petition route.[9]

Ouster clauses and constitutional bars

Statutes often declare that an order "shall be final" or "shall not be called in question in any court". Because Article 7 makes the Constitution supreme and Article 102 is itself a constitutional jurisdiction, an ordinary statute cannot remove it; such clauses at most protect decisions made within jurisdiction and in good faith.[1] The bars that do bite are those written into the Constitution itself.

Article 47(3), Article 47A and Article 102(3)

Article 47(3) provides that no law providing for the detention, prosecution or punishment of persons, including armed forces members, individuals, groups and organisations, for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other international crimes shall be void or unlawful for inconsistency with the Constitution.

Article 47A disapplies Articles 31, 35(1), 35(3) and 44 to persons to whom such a law applies and bars them from moving the Supreme Court for any constitutional remedy, and Article 102(3) removes the High Court Division's power to make any interim or other order in relation to such a law.[1] In Government of Bangladesh v Shireen Pervin Huq (2015), the Appellate Division held that a writ challenging the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973 faced a "clear bar under article 47(3)" and should have been summarily rejected.[8]

Administrative tribunals under Article 117

Article 117 allows Parliament to establish administrative tribunals for disputes on the terms and conditions of persons in the service of the Republic, and on the acquisition, management and disposal of state property and the employment in nationalised enterprises and statutory public authorities. Once a tribunal exists, no other court may entertain proceedings or make any order within its jurisdiction.[1] Civil servants challenging service decisions must therefore usually start at the Administrative Tribunal.

Indemnity statutes

Statutory immunity is the most direct form of ouster. In Z I Khan Panna v Bangladesh, decided on 13 September 2015, the High Court Division declared Act No 1 of 2003, which indemnified those involved in the "Operation Clean Heart" joint-forces drive, void and ultra vires the Constitution, and held that victims had a right to compensation for violations of their fundamental rights.[7] The decision is the clearest statement that Parliament cannot legislate public power out of review.

Judicial review of legislation in Bangladesh

When the target is a statute or ordinance, the court asks a different question: not whether the decision-maker erred, but whether the law-maker had power to make the provision and whether its content is consistent with the Constitution. Under Articles 7(2) and 26, an inconsistent provision is void "to the extent of the inconsistency", so the court strikes down only the offending part and leaves the rest of the statute in force.[1]

How a challenge to legislation is argued

A statute is presumed constitutional, and the challenger carries the burden. The usual lines of attack are a direct breach of a Part III right, a restriction on a right that is not reasonable or not imposed by law, discrimination without an intelligible basis, excessive delegation of essential legislative functions, and a law that removes the courts' jurisdiction or the protection of law guaranteed by Article 31. Where possible, a court will read a provision down to save it rather than strike it out, so a petition should offer the narrower reading as an alternative prayer.

After the 2024 to 2026 transition, many interim-government ordinances have been replaced by Acts of the new Parliament, so the first task in any judicial review Bangladesh challenge to legislation is to identify which text was in force on the date of the decision.

Judicial review of constitutional amendments

Article 26(3) excludes amendments made under Article 142 from the fundamental rights voidness rule, so amendments are tested instead against the basic structure of the Constitution.[1] Bangladesh has one of the most active amendment-review records in the common law world.

The established record

In Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v Bangladesh (1989) the Appellate Division struck down the Eighth Amendment's creation of permanent High Court Division benches outside Dhaka. The Fifth Amendment, which validated martial-law measures between 1975 and 1979, was declared unconstitutional by the High Court Division in 2005 and the Appellate Division affirmed in 2010; the High Court Division struck down the Seventh Amendment in 2011. In Abdul Mannan Khan v Bangladesh a 4–3 majority of the Appellate Division declared the Thirteenth Amendment, which created the caretaker government, unconstitutional with prospective effect. The Sixteenth Amendment, which gave Parliament power to remove Supreme Court judges, was struck down by the High Court Division in 2016 and the Appellate Division in 2017.[12]

The caretaker system: 2024 and 2025

On 17 December 2024 the High Court Division declared void sections 20 and 21 of the Fifteenth Amendment Act, which had abolished the caretaker government and the referendum requirement, and held Articles 7A, 7B and 44(2), all inserted in 2011, inconsistent with the Constitution.[14] The Appellate Division then revisited its own 2011 caretaker judgment. It granted leave on 27 August 2025 and, on 20 November 2025, a full bench led by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed unanimously allowed the appeals, set aside the 2011 judgment in its entirety for errors apparent on the face of the record, and revived Chapter IIA of Part IV, with prospective effect only.[13]

The Fifteenth Amendment appeals: July 2026

On 9 July 2026 a four-member Appellate Division bench led by Chief Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury dismissed the appeals against the December 2024 judgment, leaving intact the High Court Division's restoration of the caretaker system and the referendum provision.[14] With Article 7B gone, the limits on amendment rest again on the basic structure doctrine.

Three lessons follow for judicial review Bangladesh litigants: a two-thirds majority does not immunise an amendment, the Appellate Division will correct its own earlier errors, and it will use prospective overruling to protect past acts. Live challenges to the 2025 constitutional reform instruments and to the subordinate judiciary provisions are tracked in our constitutional law guide.

Remedies in judicial review Bangladesh courts grant

Article 102 does not use the English names, but its clauses map onto the five prerogative writs: prohibition and mandamus in clause (2)(a)(i), certiorari in clause (2)(a)(ii), and habeas corpus and quo warranto in clause (2)(b).[1] Each is explained in our writ petition guide.

Declaration and quashing

The standard order declares the impugned act "without lawful authority and of no legal effect". That is what the court ordered for the student expulsions in Shamsujjaman and the cancelled certificate in Abdul Malek.[3] [4]

Directions and remittal

The court frequently couples the declaration with directions: to publish results and issue certificates in Shamsujjaman, to resume payment of an honorarium in Abdul Malek, and to rehear a loan suit afresh in Mosarrof Hosen.[3] [4] [10] Ask for specific, time-bound directions in the prayer.

Compensation

In Z I Khan Panna the High Court Division held that it may award adequate compensation in Article 102 proceedings to victims of human rights violations in custody, or to dependants of those who died in custody, that "no hard and fast rule" fixes the amount, and that the remedy sits alongside civil and criminal proceedings against the individuals responsible.[7]

Interim relief

Where an interim order under Article 102(1) or (2)(a) is likely to prejudice a development programme or work or otherwise harm the public interest, the court may grant it only after reasonable notice to the Attorney-General and only if satisfied that it will not have that effect.[1] How stays are obtained, extended and vacated is covered in our stay order guide.

Timelines for judicial review in Bangladesh

No statute sets a limitation period for a judicial review Bangladesh writ petition, but relief is discretionary and unexplained delay is fatal. In Ali Hossain a delay of about twelve years between the decree and the writ weighed heavily against the petitioners.[11] As a working rule, file within weeks of the decision, or explain every month of delay on affidavit.

Ordinary rules can take years to reach final hearing: the rule in Abdul Malek was issued in August 2017 and decided in November 2025.[4] The sequence we follow is set out below.

Swipe or scroll →

When to instruct a judicial review lawyer in Bangladesh

Instruct counsel as soon as an adverse decision is threatened, not after it is made. The strongest judicial review Bangladesh cases are often won before filing, by putting the authority on written notice of the defect, requesting reasons and the record, and asking for a hearing.

What a strong file contains

Bring the impugned decision and every prior notice; the governing statute, rules and circulars; correspondence that could found a legitimate expectation; evidence of how comparable applicants were treated; and a timeline showing when you learned of the decision.

Mistakes to avoid

• Arguing the merits. Judicial review tests legality, rationality and fairness; a petition that simply says the decision was wrong invites dismissal.
• Ignoring the statutory route. Skipping an available appeal without explaining why it is not equally efficacious is the commonest reason a rule is discharged.[11]
• Relying on disputed facts. If the case turns on oral evidence, the writ court is the wrong forum.[2]
• Building expectation on internal notes. Only a clear representation by the authority itself will do.[2]
• Suppressing earlier proceedings. Non-disclosure of a previous writ or suit can defeat an otherwise good petition.[11]

TRW's constitutional and writ litigation practice acts for companies, investors, employees and public interest petitioners in challenges to regulatory, licensing, procurement, tax, service and detention decisions.

Frequently asked questions

What is judicial review in Bangladesh?

It is the High Court Division's power under Article 102 to test whether public authorities, courts and tribunals acted lawfully, rationally and fairly, and whether laws are consistent with the Constitution.[1]

What are the main grounds of judicial review?

Illegality, irrationality or arbitrariness, procedural impropriety such as denial of a hearing, mala fides and malice in law, error apparent on the face of the record, and no-evidence findings.[2] [10]

Is legitimate expectation recognised in Bangladesh?

Yes. The Appellate Division held in Golam Mustafa (2023) that it arises from a clear promise or regular practice of the authority itself, relied on to the claimant's detriment, and fails if it conflicts with statute, a mandatory legal requirement or the public interest.[2]

Can a decision be challenged for being disproportionate?

Not as a free-standing ground yet. The Appellate Division declined to adopt proportionality in Ekushey Television, although later High Court Division reasoning has moved closer to it. Plead it alongside arbitrariness or a fundamental rights ground.[6]

Does an appeal under a statute bar a writ petition?

Usually, if it is an equally efficacious remedy. It does not bar a writ where the decision is without jurisdiction, coram non judice, mala fide, based on no evidence or in breach of natural justice or fundamental rights.[10] [11]

Can a statute stop the courts reviewing a decision?

An ordinary finality clause cannot remove a constitutional jurisdiction, and an indemnity Act was declared void in Z I Khan Panna. The effective bars are constitutional, such as Articles 47(3), 47A and 117.[1] [7]

Can the courts strike down a constitutional amendment?

Yes. Under the basic structure doctrine the courts have struck down parts of the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Thirteenth and Sixteenth Amendments, and in 2024 the High Court Division invalidated key provisions of the Fifteenth Amendment.[12] [14]

What is the current status of the caretaker government system?

The Appellate Division revived Chapter IIA of Part IV on 20 November 2025 with prospective effect, and on 9 July 2026 dismissed the appeals against the High Court Division's Fifteenth Amendment judgment, leaving the restoration intact.[13] [14]

Is there a time limit for judicial review?

There is no statutory limitation period, but unexplained delay can defeat a petition, as a twelve-year delay did in Ali Hossain (2025).[11]

Can I get compensation through judicial review?

For serious fundamental rights violations, such as abuse in custody, yes; ordinary commercial loss is normally pursued by suit.[7]