Codification of administrative procedures in Bangladesh
📘 I. Overview: Codification of Administrative Procedures in Bangladesh
Unlike some jurisdictions with highly codified administrative law systems (e.g., the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act), Bangladesh’s administrative procedures are not comprehensively codified in a single statute. Instead, they are shaped by:
Constitutional provisions, especially fundamental rights (Article 27, 31, 32, 33, 35).
Rules of natural justice and principles of fair play developed through judicial decisions.
Various statutory laws regulating specific administrative functions.
The Bangladesh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1979, guiding administrative behavior.
Common law principles inherited from British colonial administration.
Over time, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has played a critical role in shaping the contours of administrative procedures, emphasizing due process, reasoned decisions, and fair hearings.
⚖️ II. Legal Framework
Constitution of Bangladesh (1972):
Article 27: Equality before the law.
Article 31: Protection of law—no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to law.
Article 32: Protection of right to life and personal liberty.
Article 33: Safeguards against arrest and detention.
Article 35: Protection in respect of trial and punishment (includes fair hearing).
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1987: Establishes tribunals for service matters but procedural rules are often flexible.
Civil Service Rules: Provide administrative guidance but not exhaustive procedural code.
Judicial review under Article 102 of the Constitution: The High Court Division reviews administrative actions.
🧑⚖️ III. Key Cases on Codification and Administrative Procedures in Bangladesh
1. Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd. v. Government of Bangladesh, 1999 BLD (Spl.) 1
Facts:
Dispute over compensation for government acquisition of land without fair procedure.
Holding:
The Supreme Court emphasized the requirement of due process and fair hearing before depriving citizens of property rights.
Importance:
The court reinforced constitutional safeguards requiring adherence to principles of natural justice in administrative actions, even absent specific codified procedures.
2. Secretary, Ministry of Education v. Mohiuddin Ahmed, 37 DLR (AD) 37 (1985)
Facts:
A government employee was dismissed without a proper inquiry.
Holding:
The Appellate Division ruled that no one can be deprived of service rights without a fair and proper hearing, underscoring audi alteram partem (hear the other side).
Importance:
Established that administrative procedures must respect natural justice principles even if not codified explicitly.
3. Bangladesh Sugar & Food Industries Corporation v. Bangladesh, 1987 BLD 213
Facts:
The Corporation challenged arbitrary administrative decisions affecting employee rights.
Holding:
The High Court Division held that administrative decisions must be reasoned and not arbitrary, reinforcing procedural fairness.
Importance:
Reiterated the requirement for reasoned administrative orders as part of procedural codification by judicial interpretation.
4. Bangladesh Railway v. Sheikh Shahedur Rahman, 31 DLR 142 (1979)
Facts:
Employee dismissed without following proper departmental inquiry procedure.
Holding:
Court quashed dismissal, stressing that departments must follow established inquiry procedures and afford fair opportunity to be heard.
Importance:
Underlined that even administrative disciplinary procedures are subject to judicial scrutiny for fairness.
5. Bihari Community v. Bangladesh, 2008 BLD 328
Facts:
Petition concerning denial of citizenship and administrative delays.
Holding:
The court ordered that administrative decisions affecting fundamental rights must comply with reasonable time limits and fairness, criticizing administrative inaction.
Importance:
Highlighted procedural fairness in administrative delays, reinforcing the need for codified timeframes and prompt decision-making.
6. Rafiqul Islam v. Government of Bangladesh, 1995 BLD 181
Facts:
Allegation of biased administrative action in promotion and posting.
Holding:
The court held that administrative discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously and must comply with principles of fairness.
Importance:
Affirmed that codification includes limits on discretion, with courts intervening when discretion is abused.
7. Bangladesh Power Development Board v. Mohammod Nurul Islam, 38 DLR (AD) 94 (1986)
Facts:
Disciplinary proceedings without proper notice and opportunity to defend.
Holding:
Court emphasized that a fair hearing is an essential part of administrative procedure, regardless of the specific statute.
Importance:
Shows judicial insistence on procedural fairness as part of administrative law in Bangladesh.
📜 IV. Analysis of Administrative Procedure Codification in Bangladesh
| Aspect | Status in Bangladesh |
|---|---|
| Comprehensive Code | No single codified administrative procedure law |
| Principles of Natural Justice | Fully enforced through judicial decisions |
| Due Process & Fair Hearing | Strongly emphasized, especially in service matters |
| Reasoned Decision-Making | Required by courts to prevent arbitrary action |
| Judicial Review | Robust under Article 102 of the Constitution |
| Administrative Delays | Subject to court scrutiny for violating fairness |
✅ V. Summary
Bangladesh lacks a single comprehensive codification of administrative procedures akin to the U.S. APA.
However, the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights that serve as procedural safeguards.
The Supreme Court plays a pivotal role in codifying principles through case law, demanding fair hearings, reasoned decisions, and timely action.
Natural justice principles are embedded into administrative practice by judicial enforcement.
Cases related to service matters, property rights, citizenship, and disciplinary actions show judicial insistence on procedural fairness.
Administrative discretion is constitutionally bounded by due process, even where statutory procedures are silent.
RELATED Blog
0 comments