Article 44 Enforcement of fundamental rights
Enforcement of fundamental rights
A right without a remedy is of little use. Article 44 ensures every person can go straight to the High Court Division when the State breaches a fundamental right.
On 17 December 2024 the High Court Division declared Article 44(2), as substituted by the Fifteenth Amendment, void. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals on 9 July 2026, leaving that ruling intact, as reported. The bdlaws text still shows clause (2).
A public authority detains a person unlawfully, or seizes property without legal authority. The affected person, or someone acting in the public interest, wants to enforce a fundamental right in Part III. Without a remedy, the right would mean very little in practice.
Article 44(1) guarantees the right to move the High Court Division under Article 102(1) to enforce Part III rights. The right to seek this remedy is itself a fundamental right. This direct route to the High Court Division is central to Part III.
The petitioner files a writ petition in the High Court Division. Courts have read "person aggrieved" liberally, so public-minded citizens and organisations may also bring cases on behalf of affected people. The court first decides whether to issue a Rule against the authority.
The court can issue directions or orders to enforce the right, such as release from detention or quashing an unlawful action. In December 2024 it also declared clause (2) void, a ruling left intact on appeal in July 2026, as reported.
In plain English
How Article 44 works
Article 44 is the guarantee that makes the other fundamental rights enforceable. Clause (1) guarantees the right to go to the High Court Division under Article 102(1) to enforce any right in Part III. This means a person whose fundamental right is violated by the State can file a writ petition directly in the High Court Division. Clause (2), as worded on bdlaws, lets Parliament give other courts some or all of those powers within their local areas. However, the High Court Division declared clause (2) void in December 2024 in the Fifteenth Amendment case, and the Appellate Division dismissed the appeals in July 2026, as reported. The right to enforce rights in the High Court Division remains.
In practice
Article 44 works through Article 102, the High Court Division's writ jurisdiction. Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman v Bangladesh (1974) and Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh (1996) opened standing to public-spirited petitioners, making public interest litigation common. On 17 December 2024 the High Court Division held clause (2), which let Parliament empower other courts to exercise Article 102 powers, void as part of its Fifteenth Amendment judgment. On 9 July 2026 the Appellate Division dismissed the appeals, as reported, though the detailed reasoning on clause (2) had not been widely reported. Under Article 47A, Article 44 does not apply to persons covered by Article 47(3) laws, and enforcement can be suspended during an emergency under Article 141C.
The text
What Article 44 says
[44. (1) The right to move the High Court Division in accordance with clause (1) of article 102, for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) Without prejudice to the powers of the High Court Division under article 102, Parliament may by law empower any other court, within the local limits of its jurisdiction, to exercise all or any of those powers.]
English text as published on the official Laws of Bangladesh website. Where a court has changed the position, the status note above explains it.
Landmark cases
How the courts have read it
Appellate Division · 1974
Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman v Bangladesh
26 DLR (SC) 44
Treated locus standi as a matter of judicial discretion rather than jurisdiction, opening the door to public-minded citizens bringing constitutional challenges.
Appellate Division · 1996
Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh (FAP 20 case)
49 DLR (AD) 1; 17 BLD (AD) 1
Gave a liberal reading of "person aggrieved" for public interest standing and held that Articles 31 and 32 include protection of the environment and freedom from pollution, without which life can hardly be enjoyed.
High Court Division · 2024
Fifteenth Amendment case (writ petitions challenging the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act 2011)
On 17 December 2024 declared parts of the Fifteenth Amendment void, including Articles 7A, 7B and 44(2). The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals on 9 July 2026, leaving the High Court ruling intact, as reported.
Case summaries are short descriptions for orientation, not a substitute for the judgment.
History
Amendments
- Fifteenth Amendment 2011Section 18 of the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act 2011 substituted the present Article 44 for the former article.
- High Court Division judgment, 17 December 2024Declared clause (2), as substituted in 2011, void; the Appellate Division dismissed the appeals on 9 July 2026, as reported. Not yet reflected on bdlaws.
Connected provisions
Related articles
Questions
Article 44: frequently asked questions
What is Article 44 of the Constitution of Bangladesh?
Article 44 guarantees the right to move the High Court Division under Article 102(1) to enforce the fundamental rights in Part III. It makes the right to a remedy itself a fundamental right.
Why was Article 44(2) declared void?
In its 17 December 2024 judgment on the Fifteenth Amendment, the High Court Division declared clause (2), which let Parliament empower other courts to exercise Article 102 powers, void. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals on 9 July 2026, leaving the ruling intact, as reported.
Can fundamental rights be suspended in Bangladesh?
During a proclaimed emergency, Article 141C allows the President, on the Prime Minister's advice, to suspend the right to move any court to enforce specified Part III rights. Otherwise, Article 44 guarantees direct access to the High Court Division.
Sources
- Laws of Bangladesh: The Constitution, Article 44
- Dhaka Tribune: SC clears way for caretaker government provisions (9 July 2026)
- Prothom Alo English: SC verdict upholds reinstatement of caretaker govt and referendum provisions (9 July 2026)
- Jona Razzaque, Public interest environmental litigation in Bangladesh (BILIA)
- ELAW: Farooque v Government of Bangladesh, CA 24 of 1995 (25 July 1996) (Flood Action Plan case)
- Asian Development Bank, Law and Policy Reflections: M Farooque v Government of Bangladesh, 17 BLD (AD) 1 (1997)
This guide explains the Constitution for general understanding. It is not legal advice. Constitutional reform proposals under discussion in 2026 are described as proposals until enacted.
Constitutional and writ practice
Need to rely on Article 44?
Our lawyers advise on writ petitions, fundamental rights and public law before the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.