Public Interest Litigation and Writ Jurisdiction in Bangladesh: Social Justice Through Constitutional Remedies

Part I: The Constitutional Bedrock of Judicial Review

The edifice of judicial review in Bangladesh rests upon the solid foundation of its Constitution, which is declared to be the “solemn expression of the will of the people” and the “supreme law of the Republic”. Unlike jurisdictions where judicial review is an implied power, in Bangladesh, it is an explicit and deliberate constitutional mandate vested in the High Court Division (HCD) of the Supreme Court. This power is not an extra-constitutional innovation but a carefully crafted mechanism designed to uphold constitutional supremacy, enforce fundamental rights, and ensure that all organs of the state operate within the confines of the law. The primary wellspring of this authority is Article 102 of the Constitution, a provision of profound significance that serves as the cornerstone of public law and the principal conduit for achieving social justice through constitutional remedies.  

The Power and Promise of Article 102

Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh is the fountainhead of the HCD’s writ jurisdiction. It is the sole provision that grants the HCD original jurisdiction, making it a unique and formidable tool for citizens against the state. The article’s architecture reveals a sophisticated, two-tiered system of judicial intervention. The first tier provides a direct and non-discretionary path for the enforcement of fundamental rights, while the second establishes a broader, conditional power of judicial review over administrative actions. This dual structure enables the judiciary to function as both a constitutional guardian and a supreme administrative tribunal, ensuring a comprehensive check on state power.  

Clause (1): The Enforcement of Fundamental Rights

Article 102(1) empowers the HCD, upon the application of “any person aggrieved,” to issue directions or orders to any person or authority for the enforcement of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. This clause is the primary shield protecting citizens’ core liberties. Its potency is amplified by Article 44(1), which guarantees the right to move the HCD in accordance with Article 102(1) as a fundamental right in itself.  

This constitutional linkage has a profound implication: when a petitioner successfully demonstrates an infringement of a fundamental right, the HCD’s intervention is not a matter of discretion but a constitutional obligation. The court is duty-bound to provide a remedy. This transforms the HCD into the principal guarantor of the rights enshrined in the Constitution, from the right to life and personal liberty (Article 32) to equality before the law (Article 27) and freedom of speech (Article 39).  

Clause (2): Judicial Review for Non-Fundamental Rights

Article 102(2) extends the HCD’s reach beyond fundamental rights, empowering it to conduct judicial review of the actions of public authorities even when a specific fundamental right is not at stake. This clause is the bedrock of administrative law in Bangladesh, ensuring that every public functionary, from a local authority to a government ministry, acts within the four corners of the law (  

intra vires). It allows the court to:

• Direct a person to refrain from doing what they are not permitted by law to do (Prohibition) or to do what they are required by law to do (Mandamus).
• Declare that any act done or proceeding taken has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect (Certiorari).
• Ensure a person is not held in custody unlawfully (Habeas Corpus).
• Require a person to show under what authority they hold a public office (Quo Warranto).

The “No Other Equally Efficacious Remedy” Clause

A critical gateway to the jurisdiction under Article 102(2) is the condition that the court must be “satisfied that no other equally efficacious remedy is provided by law”. This clause prevents the writ jurisdiction from supplanting ordinary legal processes like appeals, revisions, or suits. However, the judiciary has interpreted the term “equally efficacious” stringently. An alternative remedy is not considered a bar to a writ petition unless it is adequate, specific, convenient, and prompt. A remedy that is burdensome, expensive, or subject to inordinate delay is not “equally efficacious.” This interpretation preserves the writ jurisdiction as an extraordinary remedy for situations where the ordinary legal machinery is insufficient to provide swift and complete justice.  

Defining “Person” and “In Connection with the Affairs of the Republic”

The scope of writ jurisdiction is defined by the entities against which it can be invoked. Article 102 applies to “any person or authority, including any person performing any function in connection with the affairs of the Republic”. Article 102(5) further clarifies that “person” includes a statutory public authority and any court or tribunal, with specific exceptions for military tribunals and administrative tribunals under Article 117.  

Judicial interpretation has established that a writ lies against government departments, statutory bodies, government-owned corporations, and other entities that perform public functions and whose power is derived from statute. A key test is the source of power and the nature of the duty performed. A writ will not lie against a purely private individual or body acting in a private capacity, as the remedy is designed to control public power, not private disputes.  

The constitutional framework of Article 102, therefore, strategically establishes a hierarchy of judicial protection. The enforcement of fundamental rights under Clause (1) is given paramount importance, with direct and guaranteed access to the HCD. The supervision of general administrative legality under Clause (2) is designed as a residual but powerful mechanism to fill gaps in the legal system, ensuring that no public wrong is left without a remedy. This deliberate design empowers the judiciary to act as the ultimate arbiter of legality and the protector of the citizen against all forms of state overreach.

Part II: The Arsenal of Justice: Understanding the Five Writs

The power granted by Article 102 is exercised through a set of powerful legal instruments known as writs. While the Constitution of Bangladesh does not use the traditional English names, the orders it describes in Article 102(2) correspond directly to the five great prerogative writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto. These writs are not mere procedural tools; they are the substantive weapons in the judiciary’s arsenal, each designed to combat a specific type of illegality or injustice. Understanding their distinct functions, requirements, and limitations is essential for any legal practitioner seeking to invoke the HCD’s extraordinary jurisdiction.  

Writ	Purpose	Issued Against	Key Grounds	Nature of Remedy	Locus Standi Requirement
Habeas Corpus	To secure release from unlawful detention and protect personal liberty.	Any public or private authority or person detaining another.	Detention without lawful authority; violation of procedural safeguards; mala fide detention.	Coercive / Remedial	“Any person” (on behalf of the detainee).
Mandamus	To compel a public authority to perform a mandatory public/statutory duty.	Public authorities, corporations, lower courts, government bodies.	Failure or refusal to perform a legal duty; inaction.	Coercive / Mandatory	“Person aggrieved” with a specific legal right to the duty’s performance.
Prohibition	To prevent a lower court or tribunal from acting without or in excess of its jurisdiction.	Lower courts, tribunals, and quasi-judicial bodies.	Lack of jurisdiction; excess of jurisdiction; violation of natural justice.	Preventive	“Person aggrieved” by the pending proceeding.
Certiorari	To review and quash an illegal order or decision already made by a lower authority.	Lower courts, tribunals, and administrative authorities acting judicially or quasi-judicially.	Lack/excess of jurisdiction; error of law on the face of the record; violation of natural justice.	Curative / Corrective	“Person aggrieved” by the order or decision.
Quo Warranto	To challenge a person’s authority to hold a substantive public office.	A person holding or purporting to hold a public office.	Unlawful usurpation of a public office; lack of legal qualification or authority.	Declaratory / Inquisitorial	“Any person” (need not be personally aggrieved).

Export to Sheets

The Writ of Habeas Corpus: Guardian of Personal Liberty

The writ of Habeas Corpus, Latin for “you may have the body,” is the most celebrated writ, revered as the ultimate bulwark of individual liberty against arbitrary detention. Its constitutional basis is found in Article 102(2)(b)(i), which empowers the HCD to direct that a person in custody be brought before it so the court may “satisfy itself that he is not being held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner”. It is a swift and effective remedy against illegal confinement by both state authorities and private individuals.  

Procedural Requirements

An application for Habeas Corpus can be filed by the detained person or, if they are unable, by a relative, friend, or any other interested person who is not a total stranger. The petition must be supported by an affidavit detailing the facts and circumstances of the detention. Upon being satisfied that a  

prima facie case of unlawful detention exists, the court issues a “Rule Nisi,” calling upon the detaining authority to appear and show cause why the detainee should not be set at liberty. The legality of the detention is assessed based on the situation at the time of the hearing (the return of the rule), not the initial date of detention. If the authority fails to provide a lawful justification, the court will order the immediate release of the detainee.  

Grounds for Issuance

The writ is available on several grounds, including:

• Detention without Lawful Authority: Where the detention is not sanctioned by any valid law.
• Violation of Constitutional Safeguards: A common ground is the violation of Article 33 of the Constitution, which requires an arrested person to be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.  
• Mala Fide Detention: Where the power of detention is exercised with malicious intent or for a collateral purpose, rather than for the reasons stated in the detention order.
• Unconstitutional Law: If the law under which a person is detained is itself unconstitutional and void.

The judiciary has frequently employed Habeas Corpus to scrutinize detentions under preventive detention laws like the Special Powers Act, 1974 (SPA). In cases like  

Habiba Mahmud v. Bangladesh, the court has emphasized the need to balance the state’s interest in preventing prejudicial activities with the citizen’s cherished right to personal liberty, underscoring that this right cannot be curtailed on vague or unsubstantiated grounds.  

The Writ of Mandamus: Compelling Public Duty

Mandamus, meaning “we command,” is a positive and coercive writ. It is an order from the HCD compelling a public authority, corporation, or inferior court to perform a public or statutory duty that it has either failed or refused to perform. Its constitutional basis lies in Article 102(2)(a)(i), which authorizes the court to direct a person to “do that which he is required by law to do”.  

Procedural Requirements

To obtain a writ of Mandamus, the petitioner must satisfy several stringent conditions:

1. Locus Standi: The petitioner must be a “person aggrieved,” meaning they must demonstrate a specific legal right to the performance of the duty in question. A mere general interest is insufficient.  
2. Public Duty: The duty must be of a public nature, imposed by the Constitution, a statute, or a rule having the force of law. Mandamus does not lie to enforce private or contractual obligations.  
3. Demand and Refusal: The petitioner must have made a clear demand for the performance of the duty from the concerned authority, and that authority must have refused or failed to comply. This is known as the “demand for justice” rule. However, in the case of Zamiruddin Ahmed v. Govt. of Bangladesh, the court held that this requirement can be waived if the circumstances show that such a demand would have been futile.  

Limitations

The scope of Mandamus is limited. It cannot be used to compel an authority to exercise its discretion in a particular way. It can only be issued to compel the exercise of discretion itself if the authority has refused to act at all. However, if the discretion is exercised mala fide, based on extraneous considerations, or in violation of legal principles, Mandamus may be issued to compel the authority to reconsider the matter lawfully.  

The Writ of Prohibition: Preventing Jurisdictional Overreach

The writ of Prohibition is a preventive remedy, often referred to as a ‘stay order’. It is issued by the HCD to a lower court, tribunal, or any quasi-judicial authority to prevent it from proceeding with a matter that is outside its jurisdiction or in excess of its legal authority. Its constitutional source is also Article 102(2)(a)(i), which empowers the court to direct a person to “refrain from doing that which he is not permitted by law to do”.  

Procedural Requirements

The key feature of Prohibition is its timing. It is issued while the proceedings in the lower body are still pending, to halt them before an illegal decision is rendered. The petitioner must be a “person aggrieved” whose rights are being affected by the proceedings. The primary grounds for issuance are a complete lack of jurisdiction or an excess of jurisdiction by the inferior body.  

Distinguishing Prohibition from Certiorari

While both writs deal with jurisdictional errors, their timing and function differ. Prohibition is preventive; it stops an ongoing proceeding. Certiorari is curative; it quashes a decision that has already been made. A litigant may pray for both writs simultaneously:  

Prohibition to stop further proceedings and Certiorari to quash any orders already passed.

The Writ of Certiorari: Quashing Unlawful Acts

Certiorari, meaning “to be certified,” is a curative writ that serves as a cornerstone of judicial review of administrative action. It is an order from the HCD to a lower court, tribunal, or administrative authority, directing it to transmit the records of a particular case to the HCD for review. If the HCD finds the decision to be illegal, it quashes the order, rendering it void and of no legal effect. Its constitutional basis is Article 102(2)(a)(ii).  

Grounds for Issuance

A writ of Certiorari can be issued on several well-established grounds:

1. Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction: Where the authority acted without any legal power or exceeded the limits of its statutory power.  
2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: This is a crucial ground, covering situations where a decision is made without giving the affected party a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) or where the decision-maker is biased (nemo judex in causa sua).  
3. Error of Law Apparent on the Face of the Record: Where a decision contains a legal error that is obvious from a review of the record, without the need for extensive evidence or argument.  
4. Fraud or Mala Fides: Where the decision was procured by fraud or made in bad faith.

Procedural Requirements

The applicant must be a “person aggrieved” by the impugned order. Furthermore,  

Certiorari is typically available only when there is no other equally efficacious remedy, such as a statutory appeal or revision, available to the petitioner.  

The Writ of Quo Warranto: Questioning Public Authority

The writ of Quo Warranto, meaning “by what authority,” is a unique judicial remedy designed to safeguard the integrity of public office. It is an inquiry by the court into the legality of a person’s claim to a substantive public office created by the Constitution or a statute. If the person is found to be a usurper, the court can oust them from that office. This power is derived from Article 102(2)(b)(ii).  

Procedural Requirements

A significant feature of Quo Warranto is its relaxed rule of locus standi. Unlike Mandamus or Certiorari, the application can be made by “any person,” regardless of whether they have a personal interest in the office. This is because the illegal occupation of a public office is considered a public wrong, and any citizen has an interest in ensuring that public duties are discharged by legally qualified individuals. Once the petition is filed, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent, who must then satisfy the court that they hold the office under lawful authority.  

Collectively, these five writs constitute a comprehensive system for upholding the rule of law. Their design reflects a deep understanding of the potential forms of state overreach. Habeas Corpus guards the physical body of the citizen from illegal confinement. Mandamus addresses administrative lethargy and inaction. Prohibition and Certiorari police the jurisdictional boundaries of the state’s vast judicial and quasi-judicial machinery. Finally, Quo Warranto ensures the legitimacy of those who wield public power. The distinct standing requirements further refine this system: wrongs that directly injure an individual, like a wrongful dismissal, require the “person aggrieved” to seek a remedy. However, wrongs that undermine the foundational principles of the state—such as illegal detention (Habeas Corpus) or the unlawful holding of public office (Quo Warranto)—are treated as a grievance against the entire citizenry, empowering any person to approach the court. This integrated framework is not merely a collection of legal procedures; it is the operational blueprint for constitutional democracy in Bangladesh, enabling judicial oversight of the state’s relationship with its citizens at every critical juncture.

Part III: The Rise of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

While the writ jurisdiction has always provided a powerful tool for individual citizens to challenge state action, its traditional application was confined to redressing personal grievances. The emergence of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) marked a revolutionary shift in Bangladeshi jurisprudence, transforming the writ petition from a shield for individual rights into a sword for collective social justice. PIL represents a departure from the classical adversarial model, where the court’s role is not merely to adjudicate a dispute between two parties but to address systemic wrongs, protect the rights of diffuse and marginalized communities, and enforce public duties for the greater good. This evolution, largely a phenomenon of the post-1991 democratic era, was not a legislative creation but a product of profound judicial activism, driven by a judiciary determined to make the constitutional promise of justice a reality for all.  

From Private Grievance to Public Cause: The Evolution of PIL in Bangladesh

The journey of PIL in Bangladesh was an arduous one, requiring a fundamental reinterpretation of the constitutional text to overcome the rigidities of inherited common law procedure.

The ‘Person Aggrieved’ Hurdle

The primary obstacle to the development of PIL was the strict interpretation of the phrase “person aggrieved” in Article 102. Traditionally, this was understood to mean a person who had suffered a direct and personal legal injury, a concept rooted in the laissez-faire theory of the state where the court’s role was limited to resolving private disputes. This conservative stance was crystallized in the 1991 case of  

Bangladesh Sangbadpatra Parishad v. Bangladesh. In this case, the Supreme Court rejected a petition challenging a wage board award for journalists, holding that the petitioner association was not a “person aggrieved” as it had no direct financial stake. The court explicitly distinguished the Bangladeshi Constitution from its Indian counterpart, which lacked a similar “person aggrieved” requirement, thereby closing the door, it seemed, to PIL.  

The Breakthrough Moment: Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh (FAP 20 Case)

The jurisprudential stalemate was decisively broken in 1996 by the landmark judgment of the Appellate Division in Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh, popularly known as the FAP 20 case. The case was brought by the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA), challenging a flood action plan project (FAP-20) on the grounds that it would cause widespread environmental degradation and adversely affect the lives and livelihoods of a vast, indeterminate number of people.  

The Appellate Division, in a historic ruling, overturned the traditional interpretation of locus standi. The court reasoned that in a country like Bangladesh, where a large portion of the population is poor, illiterate, and unable to approach the courts, a rigid adherence to the “person aggrieved” rule would render fundamental rights meaningless for many. Justice Mustafa Kamal, in his seminal judgment, declared that when a “public injury or public wrong” is committed, affecting an indeterminate number of people, any public-spirited citizen or organization with a genuine interest in the matter should be granted standing to invoke the court’s jurisdiction. The court held that BELA, as an organization dedicated to environmental protection, had sufficient interest to represent the affected public. This judgment single-handedly opened the floodgates for PIL in Bangladesh.  

The Expanded Doctrine of Locus Standi

The Farooque decision fundamentally redefined “person aggrieved.” It no longer meant only a person with a direct pecuniary or personal injury but could also include someone who, though not personally affected, shared a common grievance with a segment of the public. This liberalized doctrine of locus standi empowered a new set of actors to access the justice system. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with a proven track record of working on specific issues, such as BELA for the environment, the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) for legal aid and human rights, and Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) for good governance, emerged as key litigants, using PIL to champion the causes of the marginalized and hold the government accountable.  

Judicial Activism and the Pursuit of Social Justice

PIL is inextricably linked with judicial activism, a judicial philosophy where judges are willing to depart from strict formalism and procedural technicalities to deliver substantive justice. In the context of Bangladesh, PIL became the primary vehicle through which the Supreme Court asserted its role as a proactive guardian of the Constitution and a catalyst for social change.  

Landmark PIL Cases and their Impact

In the decades following the Farooque judgment, the Supreme Court has delivered a series of transformative judgments in PIL cases, expanding the frontiers of rights and compelling executive action across various domains.

• Environmental Justice: The most significant impact of PIL has been in the field of environmental law. In a series of cases initiated by BELA and other organizations, the court has given substantive meaning to the fundamental “right to life” guaranteed by Article 32, interpreting it to include the right to a safe and healthy environment. Landmark directives have been issued to curb industrial pollution, stop illegal river encroachment, regulate vehicular emissions, halt destructive hill-cutting, and relocate hazardous industries like the Hazaribagh tanneries. These cases did not merely result in one-off orders; they often involved “continuing mandamus,” where the court retained oversight of the matter for years to monitor the implementation of its directives, effectively forcing policy and administrative reforms.  
• Human Rights: PIL has been instrumental in protecting the human rights of the most vulnerable. The courts have intervened in cases of illegal detention, torture in custody, police atrocities, and violence against women and children. The judiciary has also taken   suo motu cognizance of issues based on newspaper reports, such as the illegal detention of foreign nationals, treating letters and reports as writ petitions under its “epistolary jurisdiction”.  
• Good Governance: PIL has been used as a tool to enforce transparency and accountability in public administration. Petitions have successfully challenged illegal appointments to public office, arbitrary government actions, and the misuse of public funds, thereby reinforcing the principles of the rule of law.  

Contemporary Case Study (2024): Ohidul Islam and Others v. The Government of Bangladesh (Quota Reform Case)

The enduring relevance of writ jurisdiction in shaping public policy is vividly illustrated by the 2024 quota reform case. The case originated from a writ petition challenging a 2018 government circular that had abolished the 30% “freedom fighter” quota in certain categories of public service recruitment. On June 5, 2024, the HCD declared the 2018 circular illegal, effectively reinstating the quota system. This verdict triggered widespread student protests across the country, escalating into a major national movement.  

The state appealed the HCD’s decision. On July 21, 2024, the Appellate Division modified the verdict. While it overturned the HCD’s complete reinstatement of the old system, it did not revert to the 2018 circular either. Instead, invoking its power to do “complete justice” under Article 104, the Appellate Division crafted a new formula: 93% of recruitment would be based on merit, with a 7% quota reserved for freedom fighters’ descendants (5%), ethnic minorities (1%), and persons with disabilities/third gender individuals (1%). This case demonstrates the judiciary’s modern role, using its constitutional authority not just to interpret law but to actively mediate a contentious socio-political issue, balancing historical claims, principles of meritocracy, and public sentiment to forge a new policy framework.  

The evolution of PIL in Bangladesh reveals that it has become more than a legal procedure; it functions as a form of constitutional dialogue. The courtroom has transformed into a forum where civil society, through organizations like BELA and BLAST, can bring systemic failures and public grievances directly to the attention of the highest levels of the state. The judiciary, in turn, uses these cases not simply to issue narrow legal rulings but to articulate constitutional values, set governance agendas, and catalyze policy reforms that the political branches may be unable or unwilling to undertake. Judgments in PIL cases are often not the end of the matter but the beginning of a prolonged, court-supervised process of negotiation and implementation, making the judiciary an active and indispensable partner in the ongoing project of governance and social transformation in Bangladesh.  

Part IV: A Practitioner’s Handbook: Strategy, Procedure, and Pitfalls

For legal practitioners, the writ jurisdiction and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) represent the most potent tools for challenging state power and securing justice. However, their effective use demands more than just a theoretical understanding of the law. It requires meticulous preparation, strategic thinking, and an awareness of the practical nuances and potential pitfalls of constitutional litigation. This section synthesizes the preceding analysis into a practical handbook for advocates navigating the complexities of the High Court Division’s (HCD) extraordinary jurisdiction.

The Anatomy of a Writ Petition: A Step-by-Step Guide

Successfully launching a writ petition involves a series of methodical steps, from initial client consultation to the crucial first hearing.

Pre-filing Considerations

Before drafting a single word, a practitioner must undertake a rigorous preliminary analysis:

1. Clarify the Objective: Determine the precise relief the client seeks. Is it to quash an order (Certiorari), compel an action (Mandamus), prevent an action (Prohibition), secure release (Habeas Corpus), or challenge an appointment (Quo Warranto)? The objective dictates the choice of writ.
2. Gather Evidence: A writ petition cannot be based on mere apprehensions. It requires a solid factual foundation. Collect all relevant documents, such as the impugned order, official communications, affidavits, expert reports, and photographic evidence.  
3. Confirm the Respondent’s Status: Ensure the respondent is a “person” amenable to writ jurisdiction—a public authority or an entity performing public functions. A writ against a purely private body will fail.  
4. Rule Out Alternative Remedies: For writs under Article 102(2), it is crucial to confirm that no other “equally efficacious” remedy exists. If a statutory appeal is available, the practitioner must be prepared to argue why it is not an adequate or effective remedy in the specific circumstances of the case.  

Drafting the Petition

The writ petition is the foundational document of the case. Its clarity, precision, and persuasive power are paramount. A well-drafted petition should follow a logical structure :  

• Title and Parties: Clearly state the type of writ being sought and accurately list all petitioners and respondents with their full details.
• Statement of Facts: Narrate the facts of the case chronologically and concisely. This section should be objective and supported by annexed documents. Avoid argumentative language.
• Grounds: This is the legal heart of the petition. Each ground should articulate a distinct legal argument for why the court should intervene. For example, “Ground I: The impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner.” Each ground should be linked to constitutional provisions, statutes, and legal precedents.
• Averment of No Other Remedy: For petitions under Article 102(2), include a specific paragraph stating that the petitioner has no other equally efficacious remedy available under the law.
• Prayer: This section must be drafted with utmost care. It should clearly and specifically state the relief sought from the court. This typically includes a prayer for the issuance of a Rule Nisi and, after hearing the parties, for the rule to be made absolute. It should also include a prayer for any interim relief.

Filing and Court Procedure

1. Filing: The petition, along with supporting affidavits and all annexures, is filed with the writ section of the HCD.  
2. Motion Hearing: The case will be listed for a “motion” or admission hearing before a designated writ bench. This is the first and most critical hurdle. The petitioner’s counsel must present a compelling prima facie case, convincing the judges that the petition is maintainable and has merit.  
3. Issuance of Rule Nisi: If the court is satisfied, it will issue a “Rule Nisi.” This is a preliminary order directing the respondents to “show cause” within a specified period why the relief prayed for by the petitioner should not be granted. The issuance of a rule signifies that the court has found a tenable legal question that requires a full hearing.  

The Strategic Use of Interim Orders

Often, the final disposal of a writ petition can take a significant amount of time. To prevent the subject matter of the dispute from being irreversibly altered, it is crucial to pray for interim relief at the motion hearing. This could be a stay order, preventing the implementation of an impugned order, or an injunction, maintaining the  

status quo. A well-argued prayer for interim relief can provide immediate and vital protection to the client and ensure that a final victory is not rendered meaningless.  

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Even experienced practitioners can fall into traps that can lead to the dismissal of a writ petition at the preliminary stage. Awareness of these common pitfalls is key to avoiding them.

• Procedural and Drafting Errors: Simple mistakes can be fatal. These include failing to name necessary parties, choosing the wrong writ for the desired relief, drafting a vague or ambiguous prayer, or failing to annex crucial documents.   Avoidance Strategy: Double-check all procedural requirements under the Supreme Court Rules. Ensure the prayer is specific and directly corresponds to the legal grounds.
• Failure to Establish Locus Standi: The petition must clearly establish the petitioner’s standing. For individual writs, this means demonstrating how the petitioner is a “person aggrieved.” For PILs, it requires showing a genuine, bona fide public interest and the petitioner’s credibility in representing that interest.   Avoidance Strategy: Dedicate a specific section of the petition to establishing locus standi, detailing the petitioner’s connection to the cause of action.
• Ignoring the Alternative Remedy Hurdle: A common reason for dismissal is the court’s finding that an adequate alternative remedy exists. Simply stating that there is no other remedy is insufficient.   Avoidance Strategy: Proactively address any potential alternative remedies in the petition and during oral arguments, explaining precisely why they are not “equally efficacious” (e.g., they are time-consuming, lack the power to grant the required relief, or the adjudicating body is biased).
• Weak Factual Foundation: A petition based on speculation or a mere apprehension of future harm will not be entertained. The threat to a legal right must be real and imminent.   Avoidance Strategy: Build the case on concrete facts and solid evidence. Clearly demonstrate the injury that has occurred or is about to occur.
• Coming to Court with “Unclean Hands”: Writ jurisdiction is an equitable and discretionary remedy. Courts will refuse relief to petitioners who have suppressed material facts, acted fraudulently, or are guilty of undue delay (laches) in approaching the court.   Avoidance Strategy: Ensure full and frank disclosure of all relevant facts. File the petition promptly after the cause of action arises and be prepared to explain any delay.

The Challenges and Criticisms of PIL

While PIL has been a transformative force, it is not without its challenges and criticisms, which practitioners must be mindful of.

• Misuse of PIL: The liberalized rules of standing have unfortunately been exploited. Courts are increasingly wary of petitions that appear to be “Publicity Interest Litigation” or “Private Interest Litigation” in disguise, filed for personal vendettas, political gain, or commercial rivalry. Such frivolous petitions not only waste precious judicial time but also risk eroding the credibility of genuine PILs.  
• The Debate on Judicial Overreach: There is a persistent and legitimate debate about the fine line between judicial activism and judicial overreach. When the judiciary issues detailed policy directives or takes over functions that constitutionally belong to the executive or legislature, it risks upsetting the delicate balance of separation of powers. This can lead to friction between the organs of the state and questions about the democratic legitimacy of court-led policy-making.  
• Implementation Deficit: A significant challenge is the “implementation deficit.” The court can issue directives, but it lacks the administrative machinery to enforce them on the ground. Many landmark judgments remain unimplemented due to executive apathy, lack of resources, or political resistance, leading to public disillusionment.  
• Judicial Capacity and Backlog: The influx of PILs adds to the workload of an already overburdened judiciary, which faces a massive backlog of cases. This can lead to delays in the disposal of both PILs and ordinary litigation, undermining the goal of speedy justice.  

Strategic Considerations for Effective Advocacy

Effective advocacy in PIL goes beyond the courtroom. It involves a multi-pronged strategy to build a robust case and maximize its impact.

1. Build a Coalition: PIL is rarely a solo endeavor. Successful litigation often involves collaboration between lawyers, NGOs with field expertise, academics who can provide research support, and community groups who can mobilize affected people. This creates a stronger, more credible case.  
2. Leverage Media and Public Opinion: Strategic engagement with the media can play a crucial role. Media coverage can highlight the public importance of the issue, build public support, and create pressure on both the judiciary to take the matter seriously and the executive to comply with court orders.  
3. The Power of Evidence and Fact-Finding: A PIL built on strong, verifiable data is far more persuasive. Investing in independent fact-finding missions, commissioning expert reports (e.g., on environmental impact), and meticulously documenting evidence can provide the court with the empirical basis it needs to issue bold directives.  
4. Frame the Narrative: The most effective petitions frame the issue not just as a legal violation but as a matter of fundamental social justice. By connecting the specific grievance to broader constitutional values like the right to life, dignity, and equality, advocates can appeal to the activist conscience of the court and elevate the case from a simple dispute to a matter of national importance.  
5. Post-Judgment Monitoring: The work does not end with a favorable judgment. Effective advocacy requires a long-term commitment to monitoring the implementation of the court’s orders. This may involve follow-up petitions, filing for contempt of court if directives are ignored, and continuing to engage with the media and public to ensure that the judicial victory translates into tangible change on the ground.  

Conclusion

The writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division, enshrined in Article 102 of the Constitution, stands as the most formidable pillar of judicial review and a vital mechanism for the enforcement of the rule of law in Bangladesh. Its evolution, particularly through the advent of Public Interest Litigation, marks a profound transformation in the nation’s legal landscape. The judiciary has moved from being a passive arbiter of individual disputes to an active catalyst for social change, expanding the frontiers of fundamental rights and holding the executive accountable to its constitutional obligations.

The five writs—Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto—form a comprehensive constitutional toolkit, each designed to address a specific form of state excess or inaction. The liberal interpretation of locus standi in the landmark Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque case democratized access to justice, empowering public-spirited citizens and civil society organizations to champion the causes of the environment, human rights, and good governance on behalf of those who could not speak for themselves. This has fostered a unique form of constitutional dialogue, where the judiciary, in partnership with civil society, actively participates in shaping public policy and addressing systemic injustices.

However, this powerful instrument is not without its challenges. The potential for misuse, the persistent danger of judicial overreach that could upset the separation of powers, and the significant deficit in the implementation of judicial orders pose continuous threats to its efficacy and legitimacy. For legal practitioners, navigating this complex terrain requires not only technical proficiency in drafting and arguing petitions but also a deep strategic understanding of how to build coalitions, frame compelling narratives, and ensure that judicial victories translate into real-world impact.

Ultimately, the story of writ jurisdiction and PIL in Bangladesh is the story of a judiciary striving to fulfill its constitutional mandate in a developing democracy. It reflects a continuous effort to balance the imperatives of judicial activism with the principles of judicial restraint, to protect individual liberty while promoting the collective good, and to ensure that the promise of justice enshrined in the Constitution is not a distant ideal but a lived reality for all citizens. The continued vitality and credibility of this jurisdiction will depend on the wisdom of the bench, the diligence of the bar, and the vigilance of the public in ensuring it remains a true instrument of social justice.

References

1. Awal Hossain Mollah. (2015). Judicial Activism and Human Rights in Bangladesh: A Critique. International Journal of Law and Management, 57(3), 239-254.
2. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA). (n.d.). BELA’s PIL Detail. Retrieved from belabangla.org
3. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA). (n.d.). List of Selected Public Interest Litigation (PIL) of BELA. Retrieved from belabangla.org
4. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST). (n.d.). PIL Cases. Retrieved from bdpil.org
5. Chowdhury, M. R. (n.d.). Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. Retrieved from mrichowdhury.com
6. Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. (1972).
7. Hoque, R. (2012). Judicial Activism in Bangladesh: A Golden Mean Approach. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(2), 547-550.
8. Hossain, S., & Associates. (n.d.). Practice Areas. Retrieved from shossainandassociates.com
9. Howlader, A. R. (n.d.). Writ Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Institute of Legal and International Affairs (BILIA).
10. Islam, M. (n.d.). Defending Human Rights through Public Interest Litigation: Role of Human Rights Activists in Bangladesh. Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB).
11. Jubaer, S. M. O. F. (2021). Public Interest Litigation and availability of justice in Bangladesh: A legal overview. ResearchGate.
12. Lawyers & Jurists. (n.d.). 5 Types of Writ in Bangladesh | PIL Examples with Reference. Retrieved from lawyersnjurists.com
13. Lawyers & Jurists. (n.d.). Development of Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh. Retrieved from lawyersnjurists.com
14. Legal Advice BD. (n.d.). How to File a Writ Petition in Bangladesh. Retrieved from legaladvicebd.com
15. Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Bangladesh. (n.d.). The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Retrieved from bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd
16. Nusrat, J., & Khan, I. A. (2023). Ensuring Environmental Justice (EJ) through public interest litigation (PIL) in Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Legal Studies, 5(3), 143-151.
17. Rahman, M. A., & Titu, M. S. R. (2023). Access To Justice Through Public Interest Litigation In Bangladesh. Elementary Education Online, 20(6), 3490–3504.
18. Rahman, M. S. (2019). Writ jurisdiction of supreme court of Bangladesh to protect fundamental rights and it’s significance on public interest litigation. International Journal of Law, Education, Social and Sports Studies, 5(5), 37-42.
19. Refiquzzaman, M. (n.d.). Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh: A Case Study. Bangladesh Institute of Legal and International Affairs (BILIA).
20. Siddique, S. (n.d.). How to file a writ petition in the High Court. Retrieved from shanjidsiddique.com
21. Talukder, S. M. H., & Alam, M. J. (2017). Public Interest Litigation: An Effective Mechanism for Securing Human Rights and the Rule of Law. Dhaka University Law Journal, 28(1).
22. Uddin, M. J. (2019). Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh: A Tool for Social Transformation. Youth Power in Social Action (YPSA).