Writ Against Anti-Corruption Commission Action in Bangladesh: Notices, Travel Bans and Limits in 2026

Writ against Anti-Corruption Commission action: the legal basis

A writ against Anti-Corruption Commission action is one of the few tools that can stop an unlawful notice, a premature travel restriction or a repeated demand for a wealth statement before it hardens into a prosecution. The High Court Division will not sit as a second investigator, and it will not shield a person from a genuine inquiry. But where the Commission acts outside its statute, ignores its own rules or curtails a fundamental right without legal authority, Article 102 of the Constitution gives the court power to declare the act unlawful and of no legal effect.

This guide explains when the High Court Division intervenes against the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), what it has refused to do, and how the 2025 ordinance that lapsed in April 2026 and the new commission appointed in August 2026 affect strategy. It covers notices under sections 19 and 26 of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2004, travel bans, the limits on quashing proceedings, and the practical steps that make a petition credible.

Summary: The High Court Division can quash ACC notices, travel bans and other acts that lack lawful authority, are issued for an offence outside the Act's schedule, or repeat an inquiry that has already cleared the person. It will not stop a lawful wealth-statement demand under section 26, and once a case is filed the usual route shifts to the criminal courts and section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Key point: The Appellate Division has held that the Commission need not disclose its material before ordering a wealth statement under section 26, and that the demand does not breach the right against self-incrimination. A challenge to a section 26 notice therefore succeeds only on a specific legal defect, not on a general complaint of harassment.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

Writ against Anti-Corruption Commission action: the legal basis

The ACC is a statutory body created by the Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2004. Its functions are defined by section 17: inquiry and investigation into the offences set out in the schedule, filing and conducting cases on that basis, and inquiring into allegations of corruption on its own initiative or on complaint.[2] Every power it uses must trace back to that statute or to the Anti-Corruption Commission Rules 2007. Where it does not, the act is open to challenge.

The constitutional route is Article 102. On the application of a person aggrieved, the High Court Division may declare that an act done or proceeding taken by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Republic or of a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.[1] The ACC falls squarely within that description. The same Article allows directions to enforce fundamental rights, which matters most in travel-ban cases under Article 36.

For the wider procedure, including filing, the rule nisi, interim stays and appeals, see our guide to the writ petition in Bangladesh. This article focuses on what is specific to the Commission.

What the court will and will not review

The High Court Division reviews legality, not the strength of the corruption allegation. It asks whether the Commission had the power it used, followed the procedure the Act and Rules prescribe, acted for a proper purpose and respected constitutional rights. It does not weigh evidence, assess whether assets are in fact disproportionate, or substitute its view of whether an inquiry should continue. A petition that reads like a defence brief on the merits usually fails. A petition that pinpoints a defect of power or procedure has a real prospect.

The ACC's core statutory powers

Three provisions generate most challenges. Section 19 gives the Commission, in an inquiry or investigation, power to summon and examine witnesses on oath, to require documents and to call for public records.[2] Section 26 allows the Commission, if satisfied on its own information and after necessary investigation that a person holds property not consistent with legal sources of income, to order that person in writing to submit a statement of assets and liabilities; failure or a false statement is itself an offence punishable with imprisonment, fine or both.[2] Section 27 creates the offence of possessing property in excess of known sources of income, triable by a Special Judge under section 28.[2]

Challenging ACC notices and inquiries

Most ACC matters begin with a letter: a call to appear and give a statement, a demand for documents under section 19, or a notice to submit a wealth statement. These letters are the first and often the best point at which a writ against Anti-Corruption Commission action can succeed, because the record is short and any defect is visible on the face of the document.

Notices for offences outside the schedule

The Commission's jurisdiction is tied to the scheduled offences. In Md Atiqur Rahman v Bangladesh, auction purchasers who had bought land through an execution court, and whose title had been upheld up to the Appellate Division, received ACC notices under sections 19 and 20 alleging evasion of registration fees. The High Court Division held that alleged evasion of registration fees and duties on a sale deed does not fall within the scheduled offences, found the notices to be a mala fide abuse of discretion, and declared them without lawful authority.[3] The lesson is direct: check the schedule before answering the substance.

Fresh notices after an inquiry has cleared the person

In Md Syeduzzaman v Bangladesh, a police inspector submitted a wealth statement in 2018. Three successive inquiry officers found no disproportionate assets and recommended closing the inquiry. Seven months later a Deputy Director issued a fresh notice to submit a wealth statement. The court held that during an inquiry sections 19, 20 and 22 and rule 20 allow the Commission to call for information and documents, but do not contemplate a fresh wealth-statement demand of that kind without new material. It declared the notice illegal and directed the respondents not to harass the petitioner unless bona fide reasons arose.[4]

That decision must be read alongside the Appellate Division's later approach. In a review sought by the ACC in the case of Md Ashraful Haque, the Appellate Division on 30 June 2022 expunged its own 2016 observation that the Commission cannot issue repeated notices for a wealth statement, holding that notices issued to obtain documents supporting a section 26 statement serve a proper inquiry.[5] Repetition alone is therefore not enough. The stronger ground is repetition after a concluded inquiry, with no new material, as in Syeduzzaman.

Writ against Anti-Corruption Commission wealth statement demands under section 26

The section 26 notice is the most feared document the Commission issues, because non-compliance and a false statement are offences in their own right. It is also the hardest to challenge. The courts have treated the notice as an information-gathering step rather than a penal process, and they have resisted attempts to impose a high threshold before it can be issued.

What the Appellate Division has settled

In March 2025 a Division Bench summarily rejected a writ petition that challenged both a section 26 notice and the vires of section 26 itself, relying on the Appellate Division decision reported at 60 DLR (AD) 172.[6] As quoted in that order, the Appellate Division held that the Commission need not conduct a formal investigation under Chapter 4 of the Rules before ordering a wealth statement, that it is not required to disclose specific material or an investigation report, and that the satisfaction is the Commission's own.[6]

The Appellate Division further held that a notice in Form 5 under rule 17 is not ultra vires section 26, that minor departures in wording do not invalidate the notice, and that a wealth-statement demand made before any FIR does not offend the protection against self-incrimination in Article 35(4).[6]

What still makes a section 26 notice vulnerable

Those holdings close off broad attacks, but not every writ against Anti-Corruption Commission wealth demands. A notice signed or issued by someone without authority under the Act and Rules, a notice that concerns a matter outside the scheduled offences, a demand directed at a person with no connection to the property in question, or a fresh demand after a concluded inquiry without new material can still be challenged. In each case the petition should identify the specific provision breached and attach the documents that prove it.

Comply first, challenge second

Because the deadline in a section 26 notice runs while a petition is prepared, the safer course is often to comply under protest, or to seek an interim stay on the day the petition is moved. Missing the deadline turns a defensible regulatory position into a possible criminal charge. Where the notice covers dependants or assets held through companies, the response should be prepared with the same care as a tax return, because inaccuracies are what the Commission later relies on.

Writ against Anti-Corruption Commission travel bans

Travel restrictions are where the High Court Division has been most willing to intervene. Article 36 guarantees every citizen the right to leave and re-enter Bangladesh, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law. The question in each case is whether a law authorised the travel ban and whether a court sanctioned it. A writ against Anti-Corruption Commission travel memos is often the fastest relief available to a person stopped at the airport.

No executive ban without a court

In Md Azizul Alam v Bangladesh, decided on 14 July 2024, a businessman who had submitted his wealth statement was stopped from travelling to Thailand for his wife's treatment after a Deputy Director asked the Special Branch to restrain him. No case had been filed. The court held that restrictions on movement can be imposed only by a competent court or a functionary authorised by law, that the ACC could point to no law empowering a Deputy Director to impose one, and declared the memo illegal.[8]

The three-working-day rule

In Tafsir Mohammad Awal v Bangladesh, decided on 24 February 2022, the court found no provision in the Act or the 2007 Rules empowering the Commission to bar a person from leaving the country. Applying Durnity Daman Commission v GB Hossain, 74 DLR (AD) 1, it recorded that a restriction may be imposed to prevent a person leaving to avoid due process, but only subject to confirmation by the appropriate court within three working days. Without that confirmation the embargo had no legal effect, though the ACC remained free to apply to the court.[7]

The practical consequence is that the Commission must go to the court for a foreign-travel restriction, and the court's order, rather than an executive memo, is what should bind immigration.[7] A challenge to a court-sanctioned travel ban is a different exercise: it is usually made by applying to the same court for permission to travel, or by revision, rather than through a fresh writ. Our sibling guide on passport writs in Bangladesh covers passport seizure and revocation.

Quashing ACC proceedings: the limits of the writ

Once the Commission approves and files a case, the forum changes. Section 32 makes Commission approval a precondition to filing, and offences under the Act are tried by a Special Judge.[2] From that point the criminal process supplies its own remedies: bail, discharge, revision and an application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of process. The High Court Division will usually decline a writ against Anti-Corruption Commission prosecutions where those remedies are available.

Pre-cognizance challenges are premature

In Dr Zubaida Rahman v The State, 17 SCOB [2023] AD 54, the Appellate Division held that the submission of a charge sheet is not the finality of investigation until the competent court takes cognizance, and that before cognizance there is hardly any scope to claim abuse of process. It also held that the court will not act in aid of an accused who is a fugitive from law, and that a person who has not surrendered cannot expect relief.[9] The case proceeded under section 561A, but the principle applies equally to writ petitions that try to stop a prosecution before the trial court has engaged.

When the writ remains open after filing

A writ can still be appropriate where the challenge is to the vires of the statutory power itself, to an act of the Commission that no criminal court can review, or to an administrative step taken in parallel with the case, such as a travel memo issued without court sanction. Where the complaint is that the allegation is false or the evidence weak, the correct forum is the criminal court. Our section 561A quashment practice handles those applications.

Asset freezes and related accounts

The Commission's work increasingly involves freezing and attachment of assets alongside inquiries. In 2025 it filed 874 cases and froze or seized assets worth Tk30,352.75 crore, its highest level of activity.[10] Where an account is frozen, the route depends on who made the order and under which statute. Our sibling guide on bank account freeze writs explains the options.

The 2025 ACC reforms and the position in 2026

Any writ against Anti-Corruption Commission action in 2026 must be framed under the right version of the law, and that changed during the year. The interim government's Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Ordinance 2025 would have allowed up to five commissioners, including at least one woman and one ICT expert, and a seven-member search committee led by a senior Appellate Division judge.[10]

The ordinance lapsed

All three commission members, including the chairman, resigned on 3 March 2026, leaving the Commission unable to approve new investigations, cases, charge sheets, asset seizures or travel bans, although ongoing investigations continued. The elected government decided not to enact the ordinance, which was set to lapse after midnight on 11 April 2026 and restore the structure of the 2004 Act.[10] Parliament let the ordinance lapse, so the 2004 Act now governs.[11]

A new commission and a draft law

On 18 August 2026 the government appointed Justice AKM Asaduzzaman as chairman, with Dr Jahangir Alam Khan and Dr Md Sazzad Hossain Bhuiyan as commissioners, under the 2004 Act.[12] Separately, the ACC is preparing a new draft law. As reported, it would keep the removal of the government-sanction requirement in section 32(a), the shorter four-year tenure and special courts wherever the ACC opens a district office, but would drop the 120-day investigation deadline and the ordinance's search-committee structure. It would also let the secretary take decisions if all commissioner posts are vacant, a proposal civil society has criticised.[11]

Why the vacancy period matters

Between March and August 2026 the Commission had no members. Where a notice, approval or travel request in that period purports to rest on a Commission decision, the petitioner should ask who made it and under what authority. A senior ACC official was reported as saying that decisions on investigations, filing cases and approving charge sheets remained outside the secretary's purview.[11] That is a legality question the High Court Division is well placed to answer.

Building a credible petition

A petition against the Commission is read by a bench that sees many of them, and that is alert to petitioners trying to avoid an inquiry. Credibility is built on the record. The petition should show what was demanded, by whom, under which provision, when and how the petitioner responded, and exactly which legal requirement was breached. Copies of every notice, reply, receipt and inquiry report should be annexed.

Show compliance and good faith

Courts react to conduct. In Syeduzzaman the petitioner had already submitted a wealth statement and been cleared three times. In Azizul Alam he had submitted his statement and had a medical reason to travel.[4] [8] By contrast, in Tafsir Awal the court criticised the petitioner for leaving under an interim order and not keeping the court informed of his whereabouts.[7] A petitioner who appears, answers and asks only for the law to be followed is far better placed than one who refuses to engage.

Ask for the right relief

The usual prayer is a declaration that the impugned notice or memo was issued without lawful authority and is of no legal effect, with an interim stay of its operation. In travel cases, the interim relief sought is a direction to allow the petitioner to leave and re-enter for a fixed period. Courts often attach conditions, such as returning by a set date. Breach of those conditions damages the final hearing.

Swipe or scroll →

Common mistakes to avoid

The most frequent error is ignoring a notice while a petition is drafted, which converts a contestable demand into a potential offence. The second is arguing the merits: telling the court the assets are legitimate rather than showing that the Commission lacked power. The third is filing after the case is lodged and asking the High Court Division to do what the Special Judge or a section 561A bench should do. The fourth is relying on old authorities without checking later Appellate Division decisions, such as the 2022 review on repeated notices.[5]

A writ against Anti-Corruption Commission action works best as a precise instrument: one defect, one document, one clear prayer. TRW's ACC proceedings team and constitutional and writ litigation practice work together on these matters. For the institution itself, see our overview of the Anti-Corruption Commission in Bangladesh.

Frequently asked questions

Can I file a writ against Anti-Corruption Commission notices?

Yes, if the notice is issued without lawful authority, for an offence outside the schedule, or in breach of the Act or Rules. The High Court Division can declare it of no legal effect under Article 102.[1] [3]

Can the ACC demand a wealth statement without telling me why?

Yes. The Appellate Division has held that the Commission need not disclose its material or an investigation report before ordering a wealth statement under section 26; the satisfaction is its own.[6]

Does a section 26 notice breach the right against self-incrimination?

No. The Appellate Division has treated it as an information-gathering step, not a penal process, and held that it does not offend Article 35(4) where no FIR has been lodged.[6]

Can the ACC keep sending repeated wealth-statement notices?

Notices seeking documents to support a statement can be proper. But a fresh demand after an inquiry has cleared the person, with no new material, has been declared illegal.[4] [5]

Can an ACC officer stop me from leaving Bangladesh?

Not on his own authority. The High Court Division has struck down memos asking immigration to stop a person without court sanction, and any interim restriction must be confirmed by a court within three working days.[7] [8]

What if a court has already imposed the travel ban?

Then the usual route is to apply to that court for permission to travel or to challenge its order in revision, rather than to file a fresh writ against the Commission.

Can a writ quash an ACC case after it is filed?

Rarely. Once a case is filed, the criminal courts and section 561A are the normal route, and the Appellate Division treats pre-cognizance challenges as premature.[9]

Which law governs the ACC in 2026?

The Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2004. The 2025 amendment ordinance lapsed in April 2026 after the elected government chose not to enact it.[10] [11]

Who leads the ACC now?

Justice AKM Asaduzzaman was appointed chairman on 18 August 2026, with Dr Jahangir Alam Khan and Dr Md Sazzad Hossain Bhuiyan as commissioners.[12]

Should I answer the notice before filing the writ?

Usually yes, or obtain an interim stay first. Failing to submit a required wealth statement is itself an offence, so ignoring a notice while preparing a petition is risky.[2]