Writ Types and Landmark Cases in Bangladesh

Writ Types and Landmark Cases in Bangladesh

Writ jurisdiction is a constitutional remedy that allows individuals to challenge illegal actions or inactions of public authorities. In Bangladesh, writs are governed under Article 102 of the Constitution, which empowers the High Court Division of the Supreme Court to issue various writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and legal duties.

Constitutional Basis

Article 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh enables the High Court Division to:

• Enforce fundamental rights (Article 102(1))
• Review actions of persons or authorities performing public functions (Article 102(2))

The writ jurisdiction is extraordinary, discretionary, and primarily available when no equally efficacious alternative remedy exists.

Types of Writs in Bangladesh

Although the Constitution does not name the writs, the following five classical types of writs developed under English common law are used in practice:

1. Writ of Habeas Corpus

Purpose: To protect personal liberty by securing the release of a person who is illegally detained.

Scope:

• Illegal or arbitrary detention by law enforcement
• Preventive detention without lawful authority
• Delay in production before magistrate

Landmark Case:
Abdul Latif Mirza v. Bangladesh (1981)
The Court held that detention must be based on lawful grounds and must not be mala fide. Personal liberty cannot be compromised under vague justifications.

2. Writ of Mandamus

Purpose: To command a public official, authority, or body to perform a public or statutory duty.

Scope:

• Failure to act as required by law
• Neglect of public or legal duty

Landmark Case:
Ain O Salish Kendra v. Bangladesh (2010)
Mandamus was issued to ensure the protection of workers’ rights in ship-breaking yards. The Court directed the government to enforce environmental and labor laws.

3. Writ of Certiorari

Purpose: To quash an order passed by a lower court, tribunal, or authority that acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of natural justice.

Scope:

• Jurisdictional error
• Violation of due process
• Illegality in administrative actions

Landmark Case:
East Pakistan v. Rowshan Bijaya Shaukat (1966)
The High Court struck down a departmental order as being passed without proper authority and without affording the person a hearing.

4. Writ of Prohibition

Purpose: To restrain a lower court or authority from proceeding with a matter that falls outside its jurisdiction.

Scope:

• Pre-emptive in nature
• Stops illegal exercise of power

Landmark Case:
Md. Hossain v. Government of Bangladesh (1997)
The Court issued prohibition against a departmental tribunal proceeding without lawful jurisdiction.

5. Writ of Quo Warranto

Purpose: To challenge a person’s right to hold a public office that they are not legally entitled to hold.

Scope:

• Illegal appointment to public post
• Holding office without qualification or authority

Landmark Case:
Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh (1999)
The appointment of an ineligible person to a public statutory office was struck down through Quo Warranto.

Who Can File a Writ?

• Any aggrieved person under Article 102(1) (for fundamental rights)
• Any person under Article 102(2) (for legal duties or public interest)
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is permitted, where a third party files on behalf of affected individuals

Key Features of Writ Jurisdiction

Feature	Description
Forum	High Court Division of the Supreme Court
Legal Basis	Article 102 of the Constitution
Types	Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Quo Warranto
Relief	Direction, declaration, injunction, quashing of order
Time Limit	Must be filed without unreasonable delay
Alternative Remedy Rule	Writ may not be issued if alternative remedy exists unless ineffective

Notable Public Interest Writs

• Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh (1996) – Recognized PIL for environmental protection under fundamental rights.
• BLAST v. Bangladesh (2003) – Challenged arbitrary handcuffing of undertrial prisoners; court ruled it unconstitutional.
• ASK v. Bangladesh (2008) – Challenged extrajudicial killings; the court issued directives for investigation and reform.