Writ Against Bangladesh Bank: Circulars, CIB, Board Dissolutions and Resolution in 2026

Writ against Bangladesh Bank: who can be challenged and how

A writ against Bangladesh Bank is the main way to test whether the central bank has acted within its statutory powers when it issues a circular, reports a borrower to the Credit Information Bureau, removes a board, appoints an administrator or puts a bank into resolution. Bangladesh Bank is a statutory authority, so its acts are open to judicial review under Article 102 of the Constitution. But the High Court Division has become noticeably stricter since 2024, and several of the routes borrowers and shareholders once relied on are now closed or narrow.

This guide explains where the writ still works, where it does not, and how the Bank Resolution Act 2026 and the wave of board dissolutions since August 2024 have changed the landscape. It covers circulars, CIB reporting and loan classification, board and management actions, licence and administrator decisions, and the strategic choices a bank, borrower or shareholder should make before filing.

Summary: Bangladesh Bank is amenable to writ jurisdiction, but the High Court Division now routinely refuses to stop CIB reporting of defaulters, citing Article 41 of the Bangladesh Bank Order 1972 and the disputed facts involved. Challenges to board dissolutions, administrators and resolution measures face a strong public-interest presumption and standing hurdles. The best petitions target a clear statutory defect, an unlawful inaction or a failure to decide.

Key point: Loans under court stay orders reached Tk 182,419 crore at the end of 2025, and Bangladesh Bank has called for legal bottlenecks to be removed. Benches are discharging CIB rules and recalling interim orders that amounted to final relief, so a writ against Bangladesh Bank built only on avoiding defaulter status is now a weak strategy.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

Writ against Bangladesh Bank: who can be challenged and how

Article 102 allows the High Court Division, on the application of a person aggrieved, to declare that an act or proceeding of a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Republic or a local authority was done without lawful authority and is of no legal effect, and to direct a person performing such functions to do what the law requires.[1] Bangladesh Bank, as the statutory central bank and banking regulator, sits within that description. For the general mechanics of filing, the rule nisi and interim orders, see our guide to the writ petition in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh Bank versus the commercial bank

The first question is always which body made the decision. In Md Rokanuzzaman v Bangladesh Bank, decided on 29 July 2026, an officer of Rupali Bank PLC challenged his bank's internal circular on the distribution of rewards for recovering written-off loans, arguing it contradicted BRPD Circular No 4 of 18 February 2024. Following the Appellate Division in General Manager, Rupali Bank Ltd v Mohammad Jahurul Islam Patwary, XII ADC (2015) AD 294, the court held that acts of Rupali Bank after its conversion into a public limited company cannot be questioned under Article 102.[2]

The same judgment confirmed that Bangladesh Bank and its BRPD director, being a statutory authority, remain amenable to writ jurisdiction. The supplementary rule against the central bank's inaction survived the maintainability objection, but failed on the facts: Bangladesh Bank had revised the provision by BRPD Circular No 8 of 19 October 2025, and Rupali Bank had adopted a compliant policy, so the complaint had become infructuous.[2] The practical lesson is to frame the petition against the regulator's own act or omission, not the commercial bank's.

Mandamus to decide an application

One of the most useful forms of a writ against Bangladesh Bank asks the court to compel a decision rather than dictate its content. In Md Mahbubur Rahman v Bangladesh, borrowers obtained a rule asking why Bangladesh Bank should not be directed to exercise its jurisdiction under sections 45 and 49(1)(cha) of the Bank Company Act 1991 to dispose of their application about their loan liabilities, together with a stay of a scheduled auction.

The matter was later disposed of after the parties executed a rescheduling compromise on 31 July 2024, with a direction to keep paying under it.[6] A petition that asks the regulator to decide is far easier to win than one that asks the court to decide for it.

Challenging circulars and regulatory directions

Bangladesh Bank regulates largely through circulars: BRPD circulars on classification, provisioning, rescheduling and write-off, and departmental directions to individual banks. A circular can be challenged where it is beyond the power conferred by the parent statute, conflicts with a higher instrument, or is applied retrospectively to defeat accrued rights. In Rokanuzzaman the petitioner argued that BRPD circulars issued under section 45 of the Bank Company Act bind every banking company, so a bank's own policy inconsistent with them was without lawful authority.[2]

What the court will not do

The High Court Division will not rewrite prudential policy. Questions such as the appropriate overdue period before classification, provisioning percentages or the terms on which a loan should be rescheduled are policy judgments for the regulator. A challenge on the ground that a circular is commercially harsh, or that a different rule would be fairer, rarely succeeds. The petition must show a legal defect, not a policy disagreement.

Timing and infructuousness

Circulars change often. Where Bangladesh Bank revises the impugned provision while a rule is pending, the court will usually treat the rule as infructuous, as it did in July 2026.[2] Petitioners should press for an early hearing and, where a revision is likely, frame the relief around the specific decision affecting them rather than the circular in the abstract.

Writ against Bangladesh Bank CIB reporting and loan classification

For two decades, borrowers used writ petitions and civil suits to stop banks and Bangladesh Bank from showing them as defaulters in the Credit Information Bureau. A stay on a CIB record lets a borrower protect its reputation, keep banking and even obtain fresh loans, so an interim order was valuable.[5] That practice is now under sustained pressure from the bench and the regulator alike.

The statutory scheme

Section 27KaKa of the Bank Company Act 1991 obliges banks and financial institutions to send defaulter information to Bangladesh Bank, and section 5(GaGa) defines a defaulter borrower. Under Chapter IV of the Bangladesh Bank Order 1972, the central bank collects and furnishes credit information, and Article 41(1) provides that no suit or other legal proceeding lies against the Bank or its officers for anything done in good faith under that Chapter.[3] [4]

How the High Court Division now treats CIB petitions

In Md Suruj Miah v Bangladesh Bank, decided on 6 August 2025, the court discharged a rule challenging a CIB listing, holding the writ not maintainable in view of Article 41(1), relying on 73 DLR (HCD) 554. It added that an interim order restraining CIB reporting gave substantive relief at the interim stage, contrary to 58 DLR (AD) 129, and that whether the bank rightly reported the borrower was a disputed question of fact unsuited to writ jurisdiction.[3]

In Md Morshed Alam v Bangladesh Bank, decided on 9 December 2025, the court described CIB listing as a regulatory mechanism that is neither punitive nor discretionary but a statutory requirement. Relying on M/S Ripon Traders v Bangladesh Bank, 7 ADC (AD) 152, it held that delisting without full repayment of an admitted liability would run contrary to the statute and reflected an attempt to evade repayment, and discharged the rule.[4]

Why the climate has hardened

The numbers explain the shift. According to Bangladesh Bank data reported in July 2026, loans under court stay orders rose to Tk 182,419 crore at the end of 2025, from Tk 101,429 crore in 2024 and Tk 21,226 crore at the end of 2022, while stay-order cases rose from 226 in 2022 to 845 in 2025. The central bank's Financial Stability Report 2025 called for faster disposal of banking cases and steps to remove legal bottlenecks.[5]

Where a CIB challenge can still work

The space that remains is narrow but real. A writ against Bangladesh Bank may still be arguable where the liability has been fully paid or validly rescheduled and the listing has not been updated, where the person listed is not the borrower or guarantor at all, or where the central bank refuses to act on a correction request it is required to decide. In each case the petition must rest on documents that are not genuinely disputed. Where the dispute is about the loan account itself, the forum is the Artha Rin Adalat or the civil court, and our banking litigation guide explains those routes.

Board dissolutions and management actions

The most dramatic use of central bank power since 2024 has been the supersession of bank boards. Section 47 of the Bank Company Act 1991 allows Bangladesh Bank to remove a board and place management in other hands. In June 2026 it cancelled the appointments of Islami Bank Bangladesh's chairman and all its directors and, under section 47(3), vested the board's powers in an executive director, citing the interests of depositors and the public.[7]

The 2024 to 2026 wave

After August 2024 the central bank dissolved the boards of 16 banks. Some are now being handed back: in July 2026 Bangladesh Bank returned Al-Arafah Islami Bank to its shareholder-directors after a period under a five-member independent board, citing improvement in its financial condition.[8] Reconstitution and reinstatement are both administrative decisions, and either can be challenged if the statutory conditions were not met.

Grounds that carry weight

A director or shareholder challenging a dissolution should focus on whether the statutory preconditions were satisfied and recorded, whether the order identifies the public or depositor interest relied on, whether the right person signed it, and whether any procedural step the statute requires was skipped. The court gives the central bank considerable latitude where depositor protection is at stake, and an argument that the regulator should have tolerated a failing board for longer will rarely succeed. Our guide to the Bank Company Act 1991 sets out the underlying powers.

Interim relief is harder to obtain

A stay that restores a removed board can affect depositors, liquidity support and market confidence. Benches weigh that public interest heavily at the interim stage. Petitioners should expect the court to prefer an expedited hearing over an immediate stay, and should prepare their evidence on that basis.

Writ against Bangladesh Bank resolution, merger and licence actions

The legal ground shifted again in 2026. On 10 April 2026 Parliament passed the Bank Resolution Bill 2026, replacing the Bank Resolution Ordinance 2025. As reported, it lets Bangladesh Bank intervene in weak banks by suspending business, limiting shareholder rights, appointing administrators, dissolving boards or forming new management, and allows temporary transfer or merger with stronger institutions.[9]

The Act also provides for a bridge bank, a resolution department and fund, and compensation where shareholders' losses in resolution exceed what they would have suffered in liquidation.[9]

On 9 September 2026 Parliament passed an amendment repealing section 18(A) of the Act, which had let pre-resolution shareholders apply to reacquire a bank's shares, assets and liabilities. The minister said no applicant had met its conditions.[10] Former owners who hoped to use that route must now look to other remedies.

The five-bank merger

The interim government approved the merger of First Security Islami Bank, Union Bank, Global Islami Bank, Social Islami Bank and EXIM Bank into Sammilito Islami Bank on 9 October 2025. A general investor filed a writ on 18 November challenging it. A High Court bench summarily rejected the petition; according to the petitioner's counsel, the court found the ordinance contained no provision safeguarding shareholders' interests in a merger, and the value of their holdings was already negative.[11] Shareholders in resolution should therefore focus on the statutory compensation mechanism rather than on reversing the transaction.

Administrators and standing

Bangladesh Bank appointed an administrator to the mobile financial service Nagad on 21 August 2024 and dissolved its previous board. Directors obtained a rule and, in December 2024, a two-week stay, but in February 2025 the High Court Division dismissed both petitions and upheld the appointment; the petitioners' lawyer said the court found they lacked standing.[12] Standing is a real obstacle where the licence or agency relationship belongs to another entity, here the Post Office, and the petitioner is an executive or director rather than the licensee.

Licence decisions generally

Refusals, suspensions and cancellations of licences for banks, payment providers, exchange houses and other regulated entities follow the same logic. The strongest grounds are the absence of a hearing where the statute or natural justice requires one, reliance on a provision that does not authorise the action, and a decision with no recorded reasons. Where the relevant statute provides an internal review, the court will usually expect it to be used first.

Strategy before filing a writ against Bangladesh Bank

A petition against the central bank is heard against a background of systemic risk, public money and depositor protection. Benches are alert to borrowers and former owners using litigation to delay. Credibility therefore depends on showing a precise legal defect and a petitioner who has engaged properly with the regulator before coming to court.

Engage first, and keep the record

Write to the relevant department, set out the facts and the provision relied on, and ask for a decision. Annex the application and any acknowledgement. If no decision comes, a mandamus to decide is available; if a decision comes, it can be challenged on its reasons. Petitions that skip this stage invite the objection that the petitioner never gave the regulator the chance to act.

Choose the right respondent and forum

Name Bangladesh Bank and the department that made the decision. Do not rely on the writ against a commercial bank's internal decisions unless the bank is a statutory body. For disputes about the debt itself, use the Artha Rin Adalat or civil court. For securities-market issues affecting listed banks, the regulator may be the BSEC rather than Bangladesh Bank; see our sibling guide on a writ against a BSEC order.

Prepare for the Article 41 objection

In any matter touching credit information, expect Bangladesh Bank or the reporting bank to raise Article 41(1) of the Bangladesh Bank Order 1972 at the threshold.[4] The petition should address it head-on. The bar protects acts done in good faith under Chapter IV; it does not obviously protect an act outside that Chapter, a listing of someone who is not a borrower or guarantor, or a refusal to correct a record after full repayment. Explain why the case falls outside the bar, and attach the documents that prove it, rather than hoping the objection is not taken.

Match the evidence to the ground

Writ proceedings are decided on affidavits. If the ground depends on contested facts about the loan account, the court will send the petitioner to the Artha Rin Adalat or the civil court. If the ground depends on the Bank Company Act or the Bangladesh Bank Order and the documents are not seriously disputed, the High Court Division can decide it. Before filing, test each ground against that line, and drop those that need a trial.

Swipe or scroll →

Common mistakes to avoid

The first mistake is treating a writ against Bangladesh Bank as a way to avoid defaulter status while a debt remains unpaid; the 2025 judgments show how that ends. The second is suing the wrong body, especially a commercial bank that is no longer a statutory corporation. The third is seeking an interim order that gives the final relief, which benches now recall. The fourth is ignoring the 2026 legislation: a petition framed under the 2025 ordinance, or relying on the repealed section 18(A), starts on the wrong foot.[3] [10]

TRW's constitutional and writ litigation practice acts for banks, shareholders, directors and borrowers in disputes with the central bank, alongside our banking regulatory team.

Frequently asked questions

Can I file a writ against Bangladesh Bank?

Yes. Bangladesh Bank is a statutory authority and remains amenable to the High Court Division's jurisdiction under Article 102.[1] [2]

Can I file a writ against a state-owned commercial bank?

Generally not once it has been converted into a public limited company. The High Court Division applied that rule to Rupali Bank PLC in July 2026.[2]

Can the High Court stop my name appearing in the CIB?

Rarely now. Benches have held CIB writs not maintainable under Article 41(1) of the Bangladesh Bank Order 1972 and have recalled interim orders restraining reporting.[3] [4]

What if I have already repaid the loan but remain listed?

Ask the bank and Bangladesh Bank in writing to update the record, with proof of payment. If they fail to act, a petition to compel a decision is far stronger than one disputing the debt.

How much money is tied up in court stays?

Bangladesh Bank data reported in July 2026 put loans under court stay orders at Tk 182,419 crore at the end of 2025.[5]

Can Bangladesh Bank dissolve a bank's board?

Yes. Section 47 of the Bank Company Act 1991 allows it, and in June 2026 the central bank used section 47(3) to vest Islami Bank's board powers in an executive director.[7]

Which law governs bank resolution in 2026?

The Bank Resolution Act 2026, passed on 10 April 2026 to replace the 2025 ordinance, and amended in September 2026 to repeal section 18(A).[9] [10]

Did the courts stop the five-bank merger?

No. A writ by a general investor was summarily rejected, leaving the merger into Sammilito Islami Bank in force.[11]

Can a director challenge an administrator's appointment?

Possibly, but standing is a hurdle. In the Nagad case the High Court Division dismissed the directors' petitions and upheld the appointment.[12]

What is the best ground for a writ against Bangladesh Bank?

A clear legal defect on the record: action beyond statutory power, a missing hearing the law requires, or a failure to decide an application the regulator must decide.[6]