Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh: Standing, Landmark Cases and 2026 Trends

Public interest litigation in Bangladesh: standing and scope in 2026

Public interest litigation in Bangladesh allows a citizen, lawyer or organisation to bring a public wrong before the High Court Division even when no personal right of theirs has been infringed. Since the Appellate Division's 1996 decision in Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh, the words "any person aggrieved" in Article 102 have been read to include a person who bona fide espouses a public cause, and that reading has produced landmark judgments on rivers, air pollution, arrest and remand, sexual harassment and, most recently, the Constitution itself.[1] [2]

This guide explains the standing rule and the cautions attached to it, the landmark cases, how a PIL is prepared and run, the concerns about misuse that shape how benches now respond, and the petitions of 2025 and 2026 that show where the jurisdiction is heading.

Summary: Public interest litigation in Bangladesh is not a separate procedure but a way of using the writ jurisdiction under Article 102. Since Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh (1996), a petitioner who is not personally affected may still be a "person aggrieved" if he or she acts bona fide in a public cause, has a real interest in the subject and is not a busybody or acting for a collateral purpose. The court can then quash unlawful action, direct public authorities to act and, where legislation is silent, lay down guidelines that bind until Parliament legislates.

Key point: On 9 July 2026 the Appellate Division dismissed the appeals against the High Court Division's 17 December 2024 judgment in a public interest challenge to the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act 2011, leaving in place the reinstatement of the caretaker government system and referendum provisions. The petitioners were citizens, led by Dr Badiul Alam Majumdar of Citizens for Good Governance (SHUJAN), suing pro bono publico.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

What public interest litigation in Bangladesh means

The Constitution does not mention public interest litigation. It provides the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division in Article 102: clause (1) for the enforcement of fundamental rights and clause (2) for judicial review of public action, each available "on the application of any person aggrieved", and for habeas corpus and quo warranto "on the application of any person".[1] Article 44 guarantees the right to move the court under Article 102(1).[1] PIL is the body of practice that has grown from reading those words broadly so that public wrongs affecting many people, often the poor or voiceless, can be brought to court by someone acting on their behalf.

A PIL can therefore seek any remedy available under Article 102: a declaration that an act or law is without lawful authority, a direction to perform a public duty, an order restraining unlawful action, or directions to enforce fundamental rights. Our overview of the writ petition in Bangladesh explains each remedy.

Public interest and private interest distinguished

The defining feature of a PIL is that the petitioner's grievance is public: the injury falls on an indeterminate number of people or on the constitutional order itself. A petition that is really about the petitioner's own licence, land or job is an ordinary writ, whatever it is called, and must satisfy the ordinary standing test. Labelling a private dispute as a public cause is one of the surest ways to lose a bench's sympathy.

The Farooque case and the meaning of "person aggrieved"

The foundation of public interest litigation in Bangladesh is Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh, Civil Appeal No 24 of 1995, decided by a five-judge Appellate Division on 25 July 1996 and reported at 17 BLD (AD) 1.[2] Dr Farooque, Secretary General of the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA), challenged the Flood Action Plan's FAP-20 project in Tangail, alleging that it would harm more than a million people and the natural environment. The High Court Division had held that BELA lacked standing; the Appellate Division allowed the appeal.[2]

What the Appellate Division held

Mustafa Kamal J held that the expression "any person aggrieved" is "not confined to individual affected persons only but it extends to the people in general, as a collective and consolidated personality", and that an applicant who "bona fide espouses a public cause in the public interest" acquires the competency to be heard.[2] Latifur Rahman J held that a person seeking redress of a public wrong or public injury, though without personal interest, must be deemed to have sufficient interest "if he acts bona fide and not for his personal gain or private profits or for any oblique considerations".[2]

A T M Afzal CJ framed it as a test of sufficient interest: any person "other than an officious intervenor or a wayfarer" without interest beyond that of the general public, having sufficient interest in the matter, can seek redress of public injury arising from breach of public duty or violation of the Constitution or the law.[2]

The rules of caution

The same judgment set limits that still govern every public interest petition. The High Court Division will see that the applicant "is in fact espousing a public cause", that the interest is real and not "generating some publicity for himself or to create mere public sensation", that the applicant is acting bona fide, "is not a busybody or an interloper", that standing is in the public interest, and that the applicant is not acting "for a collateral purpose to achieve a dubious goal, including serving a foreign interest".[2] BELA satisfied those tests because it had devoted its time, energy and resources to the issue.

Environment and the right to life

The judgment also read the right to life expansively. B B Roy Choudhury J held that Articles 31 and 32 protect the right to life, which "encompasses within its ambit, the protection and preservation of environment, ecological balance free from pollution of air and water".[2] That reasoning opened the door to the environmental PILs that followed. See our guide to environmental litigation in Bangladesh.

Landmark public interest cases

The following decisions show the range of public interest litigation in Bangladesh, and the kinds of relief the courts are prepared to grant.

Rivers: the Turag judgment

On a writ petition by Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh, prompted by a Daily Star report titled "Time to declare Turag dead", the High Court Division delivered judgment on 3 February 2019 and released the full text on 30 June 2019. It declared the Turag a legal person and living entity, made the National River Conservation Commission the legal guardian of all rivers, declared river grabbing and pollution criminal offences, and issued a 17-point directive, including that grabbers be listed publicly, barred from elections and denied bank loans.[5]

Air pollution in Dhaka

Air quality litigation shows how PILs often run for years through repeated directions. On 30 October 2025 a bench of Justice Md Rezaul Hasan and Justice Urmi Rahman ordered full implementation within three weeks of nine-point directives to curb Dhaka's air pollution.[6] The practical value of such orders lies in the follow-up hearings that require agencies to report what they have done.

Arrest and remand: BLAST v Bangladesh

In a writ petition filed by the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) in 1998, the High Court Division gave directions on arrest without warrant and remand, and on 24 May 2016 the Appellate Division, reported at 8 SCOB [2016] AD 1, laid down guidelines for law enforcement and magistrates. It held that a police officer's satisfaction for arrest under section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure "must be based upon definite facts and materials", and that registration of a case is a precondition for seeking detention under section 167(2).[7] See our guide to police remand in Bangladesh.

Sexual harassment: BNWLA v Bangladesh

In BNWLA v Government of Bangladesh, Writ Petition No 5916 of 2008, decided on 14 May 2009, the Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association brought a public interest petition after reports of sexual harassment. Finding no specific legislation, the court defined sexual harassment and laid down guidelines for workplaces and educational institutions in the public and private sectors, "to be followed and observed … until adequate legislation is made in this field", reading international conventions into the fundamental rights where domestic law was silent.[8]

The Constitution: the Fifteenth Amendment case

The most consequential recent PIL challenged the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act 2011. In Dr Badiul Alam Majumdar v Bangladesh, with a companion petition, the High Court Division first addressed standing, applying Farooque and finding that the petitioners were not "officious bystander or interlopers or busy body", that these were "probono publico litigations", and that the petitioners were persons aggrieved.[3] On 17 December 2024 it declared void the provisions that had abolished the caretaker government system and referendums, and Articles 7A, 7B and 44(2).[3] [4] The Appellate Division dismissed the appeals on 9 July 2026.[4] Our guide to constitutional law cases in Bangladesh places the decision in context.

How public interest litigation in Bangladesh is brought

A public interest petition follows the ordinary writ procedure of the High Court Division, with a few distinctive features. Most of the work is done before filing, in assembling evidence that will survive scrutiny of both the petitioner's good faith and the facts alleged.

The petition

The petition must explain who the petitioner is and why it is a proper person to raise the issue, identify the public injury and the constitutional or statutory provisions breached, name the authorities responsible, and annex the evidence. Credible material matters: news reports can start a case, as the Turag petition shows, but official records, expert reports, field surveys and correspondence with the authorities carry more weight.[5]

Motion hearing and rule

At the motion hearing the bench decides whether to issue a rule nisi. Standing is often examined at this point, and the court may ask why the petitioner, rather than an affected person, has come forward.[2] Where an interim order may prejudice a development programme or be otherwise harmful to the public interest, Article 102(4) requires reasonable notice to the Attorney-General and a hearing before it is made.[1]

Directions, reports and compliance

PIL judgments frequently take the form of directions to several agencies, with deadlines and reporting obligations, and benches keep matters on the list to monitor compliance.[5] [6] Petitioners should be prepared for a long engagement and should track what each respondent has reported. Appeal lies to the Appellate Division under Article 103.[1]

Who should bring the case

Organisations with a track record in the field, such as environmental, legal aid and human rights bodies, satisfy the Farooque tests most easily, because their sustained work demonstrates genuine interest and good faith.[2] Individual lawyers and citizens can also bring PILs, but should be ready to show why they are proper petitioners and that they have no private stake.

Recent public interest litigation in 2025 and 2026

The volume of public interest litigation in Bangladesh has risen sharply since 2024, much of it addressing governance and institutional questions.

• The Ombudsman (May 2026): on a petition by Supreme Court lawyer Ishrat Hasan, a bench of Justice Bhishmadev Chakrabortty and Justice Abdur Rahman issued a rule asking why the failure to appoint an Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1980 should not be declared unconstitutional.[9]
• Fifteenth Amendment appeals (July 2026): the Appellate Division upheld the High Court Division's December 2024 judgment.[4]
• Judicial security (September 2026): on 13 September 2026 ten petitioners, including lawyers and law students, challenged a 27 August circular said to have reduced security arrangements for Supreme Court judges and the Attorney General.[11]
• University probe committees (September 2026): on a petition by four Supreme Court lawyers, the High Court Division issued a rule on committees formed against more than 400 teachers of 22 public universities on the basis of an online report.[10]
• Air pollution (October 2025): the High Court Division ordered full implementation of nine-point directives within three weeks.[6]

Several of these petitions concern the state's own institutions rather than the environment or social rights, reflecting the political transition of 2024 to 2026. Our companion guide to the writ of quo warranto in Bangladesh covers the related challenges to appointments.

Misuse concerns in public interest litigation in Bangladesh

The breadth of PIL standing carries an obvious risk. The Farooque court anticipated it, warning against petitioners who seek publicity, "mere public sensation" or a "dubious goal".[2] In practice, courts police misuse in three ways.

Threshold scrutiny of standing and purpose

Benches ask whether the petitioner is genuinely acting in the public interest. A petition that serves a business rival, a political faction or a personal grievance can be rejected at the motion stage, even if the issue it raises is real.[2] [3]

Requiring proper preparation

Petitions filed in haste after a news event, without evidence or proper prayers, fare poorly. In 2016 a lawyer's petition seeking a judicial inquiry and arrests within 24 hours after the killing of a college student was dropped from the lists of several benches, once because an investigation was already under way and otherwise because the petitioner did not appear, and was finally rejected as "not moved properly".[12]

Respecting other forums and branches

Courts decline to use PIL to bypass a functioning investigation, an election tribunal or the legislative process, and they leave policy choices to the executive and Parliament unless a legal or constitutional limit is breached.[12] In the Fifteenth Amendment case the High Court Division left the validity of most other amended provisions "to be looked into/decided by the successor Parliament".[3]

Preparing a public interest petition

The following sequence reflects how we prepare public interest litigation in Bangladesh for filing.

Swipe or scroll →

One further point deserves emphasis. A PIL is a commitment, not a press event. The petitioners who achieve lasting results are those who stay with the case through compliance hearings, years after the first rule is issued.

PIL compared with other routes

PIL is one of several ways to raise a public grievance. The table compares the main options. On a phone, scroll it sideways.

For the general principles of review that apply in PIL, see our guide to judicial review in Bangladesh, and for the substantive rights most often invoked, fundamental rights in Bangladesh.

What to watch in 2026

Three questions will shape public interest litigation in Bangladesh over the coming year. First, how the court handles the wave of institutional PILs, on the Ombudsman, university inquiries and judicial security, filed during the first year of the elected government.[9] [10] [11] Second, whether long-running environmental directives on air and rivers are translated into measurable compliance.[5] [6] Third, how the Fifteenth Amendment judgment, now final, influences future challenges to constitutional amendments.[4]

Organisations considering a public interest petition, and public bodies responding to one, benefit from early advice on standing, evidence and the relief realistically available. Contact TRW, or see our constitutional and writ litigation practice.

Frequently asked questions

What is public interest litigation in Bangladesh?

It is the use of the High Court Division's writ jurisdiction under Article 102 by a person acting bona fide in a public cause, even if not personally affected.[1] [2]

Which case established PIL standing?

Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh, Civil Appeal No 24 of 1995, decided by the Appellate Division on 25 July 1996 and reported at 17 BLD (AD) 1.[2]

Who can file a PIL?

Any person with sufficient interest who acts bona fide and is not a busybody, interloper or person pursuing a collateral purpose, including organisations, lawyers and citizens.[2]

Is there a separate procedure for PIL?

No. A PIL is an ordinary writ petition under Article 102, decided through a rule nisi and final hearing, often followed by compliance hearings.[1]

Can the court make guidelines where there is no law?

Yes. In BNWLA v Bangladesh (2009) the court laid down sexual harassment guidelines to apply until legislation is made.[8]

Can a PIL protect the environment?

Yes. The Farooque case read the right to life to include environmental protection, and later PILs produced the Turag river directives and air pollution orders.[2] [5] [6]

Can a PIL challenge a constitutional amendment?

It has. The Fifteenth Amendment case, brought by citizens as a PIL, was decided by the High Court Division in December 2024 and upheld by the Appellate Division in July 2026.[3] [4]

Why are some PILs rejected?

For lack of genuine public purpose, poor preparation, failure to appear, or because another process, such as an ongoing investigation, is the proper route.[2] [12]

Can a company file a PIL?

A company can apply under Article 102, but where its own commercial interests are at stake the petition will be treated as an ordinary writ and must meet the usual standing test.

What PILs are pending in 2026?

Examples include rules on the failure to appoint an Ombudsman and on university probe committees, and a challenge to a circular on judicial security.[9] [10] [11]