TRW Insight / Bangladesh
Before the High Court Division looks at the merits of a writ, it asks whether the petitioner is a person aggrieved. The answer depends on the writ sought, the petitioner's link to the wrong and whether a genuine public cause is at stake.
Locus standi in writ petitions: the 2026 position
Locus standi in writ petitions decides whether the High Court Division will hear you at all. Before a judge looks at the merits of an unlawful order, a cancelled licence or an unconstitutional law, the court asks a prior question: is this petitioner a "person aggrieved" within Article 102 of the Constitution? Get the answer wrong and a strong case can be summarily rejected at the motion stage, with time, money and sometimes the interim protection you needed all lost.
This guide explains how standing works in Bangladesh in 2026: the constitutional text, the traditional test of personal injury, the public interest standing opened by Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh, the position of associations, companies and foreign petitioners, and the way the High Court Division has applied these rules in recent cases. It closes with the practical steps we take to build standing into a petition from the first draft.
Summary: Article 102 gives the High Court Division power to act "on the application of any person aggrieved" for fundamental rights enforcement, certiorari and mandamus, and "on the application of any person" for habeas corpus and quo warranto. Since 1996 the Appellate Division has read "person aggrieved" broadly: anyone with sufficient interest who acts bona fide, including a public-spirited citizen or a local association, may sue over a public wrong. Busybodies, interlopers and petitioners with an oblique motive are still turned away.
Key point: Standing is a question of the petitioner's competence to be heard, not of the court's jurisdiction, and it is decided case by case. Show the court, in the petition itself, exactly how the impugned act touches you or the public cause you genuinely represent.
At a glance
The text
Articles 102(1) and 102(2)(a) require a "person aggrieved"; Article 102(2)(b) allows "any person" to seek habeas corpus or quo warranto.
Personal standing
An owner, licensee, employee or taxpayer whose own legal right is affected is the classic person aggrieved.
Public interest standing
The 1996 Flood Action Plan case lets a bona fide citizen or local association sue over a public wrong affecting many people.
The limits
Interlopers, busybodies, those with oblique motives and weak proprietary claimants such as year-to-year lessees can be refused.
Threshold, not final
Standing pleaded on the petition can still be challenged by respondents on facts and bona fides at the hearing.
Table of Contents
What locus standi in writ petitions means under Article 102
Locus standi is the right to bring a claim before a court. In the writ jurisdiction it is tied directly to the words of the Constitution. Article 102(1) allows the High Court Division, "on the application of any person aggrieved", to give directions or orders to any person or authority to enforce the fundamental rights in Part III. Article 102(2)(a) uses the same phrase for the orders traditionally known as mandamus, prohibition and certiorari, available where no other equally efficacious remedy is provided by law.[1]
Article 102(2)(b) is deliberately wider. An order in the nature of habeas corpus, bringing a detained person before the court, and an order requiring a person holding public office to show the authority for holding it, are available "on the application of any person".[1] A relative, a friend, a human rights organisation or an unconnected citizen can therefore file a habeas corpus or quo warranto petition without proving personal injury, which is why our separate guide to the writ of quo warranto in Bangladesh treats standing as a minor issue.
Competence to be heard, not jurisdiction
The Appellate Division settled long ago that standing does not go to the court's jurisdiction. In Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman v Bangladesh, 26 DLR (SC) 44, decided in 1974 over the Berubari boundary treaty, the court held that the High Court Division suffers from no lack of jurisdiction to hear any person; the real question is the competency of that person to claim a hearing, which is a matter for the court's discretion on the facts of each case.[2] [4] That framing still governs locus standi in writ petitions today. It explains why standing objections are argued at the threshold, why the answer can differ between two petitioners challenging the same act, and why careful pleading matters so much.
Why standing matters to the outcome
A writ petition is first moved before a Division Bench for a Rule Nisi. If the bench is not satisfied that the petitioner is a person aggrieved, it can reject the petition summarily without calling on the respondents. Even after a Rule issues, respondents commonly raise standing in their affidavit-in-opposition, and a Rule can be discharged on that ground alone after months of litigation. For the overall procedure, see our guide to the writ petition in Bangladesh.
The traditional test: a personal legal injury
The starting point for locus standi in writ petitions is still the individual whose own legal right or interest has been affected. Mustafa Kamal J put it plainly in the Flood Action Plan case: the traditional view "remains true, valid and effective" in so far as individual rights and individual infractions are concerned.[7] A landowner whose property is requisitioned, a trader whose licence is cancelled, a student whose result is withheld, a taxpayer served with an unlawful demand and a company whose bank account is frozen are all persons aggrieved in this classic sense.
The applicant must show a right recognised by law, not merely a hope or a commercial expectation. The more direct and documented the link between the impugned act and the petitioner's position, the less room the respondents have to argue standing at all.
Lessees, licensees and weak proprietary claims
The traditional test cuts both ways. In Writ Petition No 8515 of 2022, the High Court Division (Zafar Ahmed and Md Bashir Ullah JJ) discharged a Rule brought by a lessee of vested property who challenged a decision of the Arpita Sampatti Appellate Tribunal in Barishal. Relying on Aroti Rani Paul v Sudarshan Kumar Paul, 56 DLR (AD) 73, and Fahmida Begum v Bangladesh, 25 BLT 292, the court held that a year-to-year lessee of the property had no locus standi to maintain the writ petition; it was for the vested property authority to challenge the decree.[8]
For locus standi in writ petitions, the lesson is wider than vested property. Where the petitioner's interest is derivative, temporary or dependent on another party's title, the court may find that the right person to sue is someone else. A tenant of a government enterprise, a sub-lessee or an agent should consider whether the owner, the principal or the licence holder ought to be the petitioner, or at least a co-petitioner.
Competitors and third parties
A business that objects to a licence, approval or tender award granted to a rival is not automatically a person aggrieved. It must show that the impugned act affects its own legal position, for example because it took part in the same process, because a statute gives it a right to object, or because the decision breaches a rule designed to protect it. Commercial disappointment alone is a weak foundation.
Public interest standing after Mohiuddin Farooque
The decisive expansion of locus standi in writ petitions came on 25 July 1996, when the Appellate Division allowed Civil Appeal No 24 of 1995 in Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh, reported at 17 BLD (AD) 1 and 49 DLR (AD) 1.[3] [7] The Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association had challenged the Flood Action Plan project in Tangail. The High Court Division had held that the association was not a person aggrieved. The Appellate Division reversed that finding and sent the case back for hearing on the merits.[3]
Sufficient interest and locus standi in writ petitions
A T M Afzal CJ described the liberal reading of "any person aggrieved" as amounting to what is broadly called "sufficient interest". Any person other than an officious intervener, a wayfarer with no interest beyond that of the general public, or a person with an oblique motive, who has sufficient interest in the matter, may maintain an action for judicial redress of public injury arising from breach of a public duty or violation of the Constitution or law. What counts as sufficient interest depends on the correlation between the matter and the person bringing it; there is no strait-jacket formula.[2]
Mustafa Kamal J held that where a public wrong or infraction of fundamental rights affects an indeterminate number of people, any citizen suffering the common injury, or any citizen or indigenous association espousing that cause, is a person aggrieved. B B Roy Choudhury J added that the expression covers not only someone personally aggrieved but "one whose heart bleeds for his less fortunate fellow beings", while excluding an interloper who interferes in things that do not concern him.[2] [7]
Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman's seven principles
The Flood Action Plan judgment drew on seven principles distilled from Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman. In summary: the court has jurisdiction to hear any person; standing will be given to a person raising a constitutional issue of grave importance; where a fundamental right is involved, it is enough that the petitioner shares the right in common with others; the fundamental rights in Part III are relevant to interpretation; the core question is competence to claim a hearing; it is a matter of discretion; and that discretion is exercised on the facts of each case.[2]
The limits that still apply
Public interest standing is not unlimited. Latifur Rahman J required the petitioner to act bona fide and "not for his personal gain or private profits or for any oblique considerations".[2] The Chief Justice stressed that a petitioner who crosses the threshold on the pleadings can still be challenged by respondents on facts and on bona fides.[2]
In BRAC v Professor Muzaffar Ahmed, (2002) 22 BLD (AD) 41, concerning BRAC Bank's incorporation, the Appellate Division held that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person, while in Ekushey Television Ltd v Dr Chowdhury Mahmood Hasan, (2002) 54 DLR (AD) 130, conscious members of society were held to have sufficient interest to challenge a broadcasting licence.[4] The two cases show that the outcome turns on the nature of the wrong, not on a slogan. Our guide to public interest litigation in Bangladesh covers the landmark cases and procedure in detail.
Associations, trade bodies and companies
Representative standing is one of the most contested areas of locus standi in writ petitions. An association can sue to protect its own rights as a body. Whether it can sue on behalf of its members is more nuanced.
The Sangbad Patra Parishad line
In Bangladesh Sangbad Patra Parishad v Bangladesh, 43 DLR (AD) 126, the newspaper owners' association was held unable to maintain a writ petition in a representative capacity for its members, and the court approved Dada Match Workers Union, 29 DLR 188, which held that a trade union could not seek relief for its members under Article 102.[2]
The Flood Action Plan court explained the reasoning: the Parishad was not espousing the cause of a downtrodden section of the community unable to afford litigation. It noted, without finally deciding the point, that in Retired Government Employees, 46 DLR 426, the High Court Division had treated a welfare association of retired public servants as a person aggrieved because it ventilated a common grievance of all its members.[2]
The practical position for business associations, chambers and trade bodies is therefore cautious. Where members have distinct commercial interests and the means to sue, a court may expect them to file in their own names, with the association joining as co-petitioner. Where the association advances a genuine public cause, or represents people who cannot practically litigate, its standing is much stronger.
Companies as petitioners
A company is a legal person and, where its own legal rights are affected, it is a person aggrieved like any individual. Companies routinely file writ petitions against tax and VAT demands, licence actions, bank account freezes and regulatory orders. Two points need care. First, the petition should be filed by the company itself, authorised by a board resolution, rather than by a director or shareholder in a personal capacity, unless the individual has a distinct right of their own. Second, a shareholder suing over a wrong done to the company may face the objection that the company is the proper petitioner, so the corporate approvals should be in place before filing.
Directly affected persons
Owners, licensees, employees, students and taxpayers whose own legal rights are affected by the impugned act.
Corporate petitioners
Sue in their own name for their own rights, authorised by a board resolution.
Citizens and local associations
May sue bona fide over a public wrong affecting an indeterminate number of people.
Trade bodies and unions
Representative standing for members has been refused in leading cases unless a genuine public cause is involved.
Habeas corpus and quo warranto applicants
Article 102(2)(b) does not require personal grievance.
Non-citizens and foreign bodies
Can sue for their own rights and for rights extended to every person, but not for citizens-only rights.
Foreign petitioners and non-citizens
Whether a foreign national or foreign company has locus standi in writ petitions depends first on which right is invoked. Several fundamental rights belong to citizens only: equality before law in Article 27, freedom of movement in Article 36, freedom of profession and trade in Article 40 and the right to property in Article 42 are each expressed as rights of "every citizen" or "all citizens".[1]
Other rights are wider. Article 31 protects the right to the protection of law of every citizen "and of every other person for the time being within Bangladesh", Article 32 says that "no person" shall be deprived of life or personal liberty save in accordance with law, and the arrest safeguards in Article 33 apply to every person arrested.[1]
For Article 102(2)(a) relief, the question is not citizenship but whether the petitioner is aggrieved by an unlawful act of a public functionary. A foreign investor whose Bangladeshi subsidiary holds the affected licence will usually find that the subsidiary is the natural petitioner. A foreign company acting directly, for example as a bidder or licence holder, can show a personal legal interest in the ordinary way.
Public interest standing is narrower for foreign bodies, and it is here that sufficient interest is hardest to show. Mustafa Kamal J confined it to citizens and to an "indigenous association, as distinguished from a local component of a foreign organization".[7] International NGOs that wish to support a public interest case are therefore better advised to work through a Bangladeshi organisation or affected citizens as petitioners. Habeas corpus is the exception, since "any person" may apply.[1]
Who can be sued: the other side of standing
Standing concerns the petitioner, but it is closely linked to the question of whom the writ can be directed against. Article 102(1) allows orders against "any person or authority", while Article 102(2)(a) is confined to persons performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Republic or of a local authority, with "person" defined in Article 102(5) to include a statutory public authority and courts and tribunals other than defence and Article 117 tribunals.[1]
The Daily Star's Law Desk notes that the High Court Division in 2018, in the Moulana Md Abdul Hakim and Liberty Fashion cases, held that relief under Article 102(1) can reach private persons and entities that violate fundamental rights.[5] For how these rights are enforced in practice, see our guide to fundamental rights in Bangladesh and our constitutional writ litigation practice.
How courts applied locus standi in writ petitions in 2024 to 2026
Recent cases show both sides of the doctrine.
Constitutional challenges by citizens and parties
In Writ Petition Nos 9935 and 12431 of 2024, Dr Badiul Alam Majumdar and others, and a freedom fighter in the connected petition, challenged the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act 2011. In its judgment of 17 December 2024, a Division Bench of Farah Mahbub and Debasish Roy Chowdhury JJ addressed standing as a threshold issue, applied the Flood Action Plan principles and held that the petitioners and interveners were not officious bystanders, interlopers or busybodies; the petitions were pro bono publico litigation and the petitioners were persons aggrieved under Article 102.[7] The court treated the questions raised, democracy, rule of law and the franchise, as matters affecting an indefinite number of people.
Petitions rejected at the threshold
The court is equally ready to refuse. On 22 May 2025 the High Court Division, comprising Justice Md Akram Hossain Chowdhury and Justice Debasish Roy Chowdhury, rejected a writ petition challenging the Election Commission's gazette declaring Ishraque Hossain mayor of Dhaka South City Corporation; according to counsel's account to journalists, the court observed that the petitioner had shown no injury as a voter and had no legal standing.[9] Politically charged public interest petitions are also frequently rejected summarily; in September 2024, for example, a petition by a rights organisation's executive director seeking a ban on a political party was summarily rejected.[10]
The pattern is consistent. Where a petitioner can show a real connection to the wrong or a genuine public cause affecting many people, the court applies the liberal test. Where the petition looks like a proxy for a private or political contest, standing becomes the first hurdle and often the last.
Building standing into the petition: a step-by-step approach
Most standing problems are avoidable. The sequence below reflects how we prepare a petition so that locus standi in writ petitions is established on the face of the papers.
Identify the right affected
Pin down the precise legal right, licence, property, office or fundamental right that the impugned act touches, and whose right it is.
Choose the right petitioner
File in the name of the person who holds that right: the company rather than its director, the owner rather than the tenant, the licensee rather than the agent.
Add co-petitioners where useful
Join directly affected individuals alongside an association so that standing does not rest on representative capacity alone.
Plead standing expressly
Include a dedicated paragraph explaining why the petitioner is a person aggrieved, citing the governing Appellate Division principles.
Prove it with documents
Annex title deeds, licences, assessment orders, membership records or evidence of the public injury and the petitioner's work on the cause.
Show bona fides
In public interest cases, disclose the petitioner's background, funding and any connection to the parties so no oblique motive can be suggested.
Anticipate the objection
Prepare a short note answering likely standing objections before the motion hearing, and be ready to repeat it at the final hearing.
The Daily Star's long-running guidance on public interest practice makes a related point: a petition is treated as public interest litigation only where the public or a group, not a single individual, is affected, and whether a particular petition qualifies depends on its facts.[6] Plead those facts; do not assume them.
Comparing petitioner types
The table below summarises how standing is usually assessed for the main categories of petitioner. On a phone, scroll it sideways.
| Petitioner | Typical writ | Standing test | Main risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Owner or licence holder | Certiorari, mandamus | Own legal right affected | Low if documented |
| Lessee or tenant | Certiorari | Interest must be substantial, not derivative | Owner may be the proper petitioner |
| Company | Certiorari, mandamus | Company's own rights affected | Filing by director or shareholder instead |
| Association or trade body | Article 102(1), (2)(a) | Own rights, or genuine public cause | Representative capacity refused |
| Public-spirited citizen | Public interest writ | Sufficient interest and bona fides | Oblique motive or busybody finding |
| Foreign national or body | Article 102(1), (2)(a) | Own rights or rights of every person | Citizens-only rights and public interest limits |
| Any person | Habeas corpus, quo warranto | No personal grievance needed | Merits, not standing |
Common mistakes to avoid
- Filing in the wrong name: a director suing for the company, or a tenant suing for the owner, invites an objection that the proper person aggrieved is someone else.
- Leaving standing implicit: the petition should state in a dedicated paragraph why the petitioner is a person aggrieved, with documents annexed.
- Overreaching in public interest cases: a petitioner with a private or political stake who presents the case as public interest risks a finding of oblique motive.
- Using a foreign NGO as lead petitioner: public interest standing has been tied to citizens and indigenous associations.
- Ignoring the respondent's right to contest: standing accepted at the motion stage can still be attacked on facts at the hearing, so the evidence must hold up.
- Confusing standing with maintainability: even a person aggrieved can be refused where an equally efficacious alternative remedy exists or where delay is unexplained.
Locus standi in writ petitions is the gateway issue, but it is rarely the only one. Before filing, test the petition against the alternative remedy bar, delay and the amenability of the respondent as well. If you are considering a challenge, or defending one, speak to TRW's writ team in Dhaka early, while the choice of petitioner is still open.
Frequently asked questions
What is locus standi in a writ petition?
It is the petitioner's right to be heard by the High Court Division under Article 102. For most writs the petitioner must be a "person aggrieved"; for habeas corpus and quo warranto "any person" may apply.[1]
Who is a "person aggrieved" under Article 102?
Anyone whose own legal right is affected, and, since the Flood Action Plan case, any person with sufficient interest who acts bona fide over a public wrong affecting many people. Interlopers and busybodies are excluded.[2]
Can any citizen file a public interest writ?
Can a company file a writ petition?
Yes. A company whose own legal rights are affected is a person aggrieved. File in the company's name with a board resolution authorising the petition and the deponent.
Can an association sue for its members?
Not always. The Sangbad Patra Parishad case denied representative standing to a newspaper owners' association, while associations espousing a genuine public cause or representing people unable to sue have been treated more favourably.[2]
Can a foreign national file a writ in Bangladesh?
Who can file a habeas corpus petition?
Any person. Article 102(2)(b) does not require the applicant to be personally aggrieved, so relatives, friends and organisations can apply for a detained person.[1]
Can a lessee challenge a decision about the leased property?
It depends on the interest. The High Court Division has held that a year-to-year lessee of vested property had no standing to challenge a tribunal decision about that property.[8]
When is standing decided?
First at the motion stage, when the bench decides whether to issue a Rule, and again at the final hearing, when respondents may contest it on facts and bona fides.[2]
Does having standing guarantee the writ will be heard?
No. A person aggrieved may still be refused because an equally efficacious alternative remedy exists, because of unexplained delay, or because the respondent is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction.[1]
Source register
Primary legal and regulatory sources
Materials checked on 23 October 2026. Confirm the current official text before relying on any provision.
- Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh (Articles 27, 31, 32, 33, 36, 40, 42, 102) — Laws of Bangladesh
- Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh, Civil Appeal No 24 of 1995 (Appellate Division, 25 July 1996), 17 BLD (AD) 1 — full judgment
- ELAW — Farooque v Government of Bangladesh (Flood Action Plan case), case summary
- Banglapedia — Public Interest Litigation
- The Daily Star, Law & Our Rights, 6 November 2023 — Who can get fundamental rights enforced against whom?
- The Daily Star, Law & Our Rights, 27 May 2006 — Public interest litigation: an outline
- Dr Badiul Alam Majumdar v Bangladesh, Writ Petition Nos 9935 and 12431 of 2024 (High Court Division, 17 December 2024)
- Most Nehar Begum v Arpita Sampatti Appellate Tribunal, Barishal, Writ Petition No 8515 of 2022 (High Court Division, 19 July 2023)
- Dhaka Tribune, 22 May 2025 — High Court rejects writ against Ishraque's gazette
- The Financial Express, 2 September 2024 — HC rejects writ seeking ban on AL
Related TRW assistance
Move from information to a defined next step
TRW acts for petitioners and respondents in writ petitions before the High Court Division, from standing and maintainability objections to final hearing and appeal. Explore our constitutional and writ litigation practice or contact TRW in Dhaka to discuss your matter.