Certiorari in Bangladesh administrative law
Introduction
In Bangladesh, judicial review is a vital tool for ensuring administrative accountability, protecting fundamental rights, and upholding the rule of law. The courts, especially the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, have jurisdiction to review administrative acts under Articles 102 and 103 of the Constitution.
Main Grounds for Judicial Review
Illegality
Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness)
Procedural Impropriety
Proportionality
Violation of Fundamental Rights
Error of Law
1. Illegality
An administrative action must be authorized by law.
Acts beyond the scope of delegated authority (ultra vires) are void.
Courts check if the authority acted within its jurisdiction.
Case: Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd. v. Government of Bangladesh, 44 DLR (AD) 1 (1992)
The court held that any administrative action must be based on legal authority.
Ultra vires actions were struck down.
This case reinforced that illegality is a fundamental ground for judicial review.
2. Irrationality (Wednesbury Unreasonableness)
Decisions must not be so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made them.
It’s a high threshold; mere dissatisfaction does not suffice.
Case: Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Md. Abdul Gafur, 24 DLR 131 (1972)
The court held that decisions made in a capricious or arbitrary manner can be struck down.
Emphasized rationality as a requirement in administrative decisions.
3. Procedural Impropriety
Administrative decisions must comply with procedural fairness, including the right to be heard.
Violation of natural justice (audi alteram partem) is a ground for review.
Case: Golam Mustafa v. Government of Bangladesh, 28 DLR (AD) 54 (1976)
The High Court Division quashed a decision taken without giving the affected party a fair hearing.
This case firmly established the requirement of due process in administrative actions.
4. Proportionality
The action must be proportionate to the objective sought.
Excessive or inadequate responses by the authority can be challenged.
Case: Md. Rahmat Ullah v. Bangladesh, 41 DLR (AD) 15 (1989)
The court examined whether the punishment or penalty imposed was proportionate.
Established proportionality as a ground to limit executive overreach.
5. Violation of Fundamental Rights
Administrative actions infringing constitutional fundamental rights are subject to judicial review.
The courts protect rights like freedom of speech, equality, and fair trial.
Case: Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd. v. Government of Bangladesh, 44 DLR (AD) 1 (1992)
Apart from illegality, the court emphasized protection of fundamental rights against arbitrary state actions.
6. Error of Law
If a decision is based on a wrong interpretation of law, courts can intervene.
Misinterpretation or ignorance of law by an authority invalidates the action.
Case: Abdul Hakim v. Bangladesh, 20 DLR 312 (1968)
The court quashed a decision where there was a clear error of law.
This case highlights the importance of correct legal interpretation in administrative decisions.
Summary Table
| Ground of Review | Explanation | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Illegality | Acting beyond legal authority (ultra vires) | Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd. (1992) |
| Irrationality | Unreasonable or arbitrary decisions | Secretary of State v. Md. Abdul Gafur (1972) |
| Procedural Impropriety | Violation of natural justice | Golam Mustafa v. Bangladesh (1976) |
| Proportionality | Actions must be proportionate | Md. Rahmat Ullah v. Bangladesh (1989) |
| Violation of Fundamental Rights | Breach of constitutional rights | Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd. (1992) |
| Error of Law | Wrong interpretation or application of law | Abdul Hakim v. Bangladesh (1968) |
Conclusion
Bangladeshi courts use these grounds to ensure that administrative actions are lawful, rational, procedurally fair, and respectful of constitutional rights. Judicial review acts as a check on executive power and safeguards citizens from arbitrary decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments