What is this writ petition that forced ACC to launch probe into graft allegations against Benazir

Tareq Abedin Siraji

Student of Law, World University of Bangladesh.

Recently, it was reported that Md Salah Uddin Rigan, a lawyer for the Supreme Court, had filed a writ
petitioning the court for direction to order the ACC to investigate serious allegations of corruption that
had surfaced against Benazir in the media. Barrister Suman, also a lawmaker representing the Habiganj-4
constituency, submitted a petition to the chairman of the ACC, accompanied by media reports pertaining
to the same subject. Frequently, we hear in the media or newspapers that a writ petition has been filed or
that a PIL has filed one. From time to time, we wonder what a writ petition consists of, how it operates,
who can file one, and whether or not they must be aggrieved in order to do so.

In Bangladesh's legal system, there are powerful mechanisms that allow citizens to directly invoke their
constitutional rights and seek redress against injustices or overreach by the state and its authorities. These
come in the form of writ petitions and public interest litigations (PILs) filed before the High Court
Division of the Supreme Court.

A writ petition is a vehicle through which a person can directly petition the higher judiciary, usually the
High Court, to enforce their fundamental constitutional rights. It allows individuals to challenge the
legality of any act, order, or decision by government authorities, public bodies, or even private entities if
it infringes on basic rights and freedoms.

Essentially, writ petitions enable citizens to invoke the court's jurisdiction to issue orders safeguarding
their core liberties guaranteed by the constitution. Some common types of writs include habeas corpus
(requiring an unauthorized detained person be produced before court), mandamus (directing an authority
to perform public duties), certiorari (quashing illegal proceedings), and prohibition (preventing unlawful
actions).

For example, if a person is detained without being informed of the grounds for arrest, they can file a writ
of habeas corpus demanding authorities bring them before the court and legally justify the detention. Or if
a civic body fails to take action to clear illegal encroachments, a writ of mandamus can compel them to
execute their duty.
Writ petitions thus serve as an important judicial check against arbitrary state overreach and denial of
basic rights. They provide citizens a powerful constitutional remedy to hold authorities accountable and
conform to principles of natural justice.

While writ petitions are focused on protecting individual rights, public interest litigations (PILs) have a
broader scope of addressing issues of significance impacting society at large. PILs allow public-spirited
citizens, civic organizations, social activists, or even the court itself to initiate litigation over any policies,
acts, or omissions that violate constitutional principles, human rights, or negatively impact public interest.

Through PILs, the judiciary can intervene and issue directives to the government or relevant stakeholders
to remedy injustices, identify systemic shortcomings, and uphold the rule of law. This unique legal
concept focuses not on an individual's dispute, but on vindicating the rights and broader interests of
vulnerable groups, communities, or society itself.

PILs have emerged as a profound instrument of social change and justice across many nations. They have
enabled courts to proactively address matters like environmental protection, preventing exploitation of
disadvantaged populations, ensuring accountable governance, safeguarding civil liberties, and even
shaping public policies impacting people's lives.

A writ petition is a constitutional remedy that can be used by any person to enforce their fundamental
rights guaranteed by the constitution. It allows individuals to challenge the legality of any act or decision
made by the government, public officials, or statutory bodies that infringes on these core rights and
freedoms.

Notable examples include MP Barrister Syed Sayedul Haque Sumon filing a writ petition in 2020
challenging the constitutional legality of keeping former Chief Justice S.K. Sinha in "forced official exile"
abroad. Sumon argued this amounted to violating Sinha's fundamental rights to freedom of movement,
dignity, and protection of law. The writ sought judicial intervention to allow the ex-CJ to return home.

PILs have been a catalyzing force for social justice in Bangladesh, often spearheaded by legal advocacy
groups and activists seeking to remedy large-scale injustices beyond any single individual's grievances.
They have enabled courts to proactively instruct the state to uphold constitutional principles, human
rights, and rule of law.
A powerful example was the historic PIL filed in 2009 by the Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh
(HRPB) organization seeking directives for protecting the Garo indigenous community's land rights in the
Modhupur forest area. The litigation brought national focus to land-grabbing and displacement issues
faced by ethnic minority populations. The High Court's landmark judgment ultimately directed
government authorities to uphold the Garo's rights and take measures to safeguard their ancestral lands
and livelihoods.

Similarly, PILs have been instrumental in pushing the state apparatus to better protect vulnerable groups
like children, workers, the impoverished, persons with disabilities, minority groups, and women facing
discrimination or lack of legal access. The Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) has
filed numerous PILs addressing environmental issues ranging from river encroachment to curbing air
pollution.

In a 2019 case, nine Supreme Court lawyers jointly filed a PIL seeking judicial intervention to stop
frequent hartals, blockades, and strikes shuttering the nation for political agitations. Arguing such
stoppages severely impacted economic progress and infringed on citizens' constitutional freedoms, the
PIL requested the court direct government steps toward controlling the disruptive protests. The High
Court responded by imposing restrictions on the duration and timing of hartals.

Whether instigated by concerned citizens, advocacy bodies, or the courts themselves, writ petitions and
PILs serve as formidable tools for enacting change and upholding constitutional governance in
Bangladesh. By providing aggrieved parties or public interest advocates legal standing to challenge
injustice and demand accountability, these mechanisms have spawned landmark verdicts protecting
rights, delivering justice, and shaping a more equitable society.