Standing in writ petitions before the High Court Division
What is Standing?
Standing refers to the legal right to bring a writ petition.
The petitioner must demonstrate a sufficient connection to, or harm from, the action challenged.
Standing ensures courts address genuine grievances, not hypothetical or academic questions.
Principles of Standing in Writ Petitions
Personal Interest or Injury
The petitioner must show they have a direct, personal, and substantial interest or injury.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Courts in some jurisdictions, including Bangladesh, allow PIL to promote justice on behalf of those unable to approach the court themselves.
Standing may be relaxed to allow concerned citizens or organizations to file petitions for the public good.
No Vexatious Litigation
Standing prevents abuse of judicial process through frivolous or vexatious petitions.
Constitutional Basis
Article 102 of the Bangladesh Constitution empowers the High Court Division to issue writs.
Courts have developed doctrines to interpret standing requirements under this provision.
Important Case Law on Standing in Writ Petitions Before the High Court Division
1. Aminul Islam Chowdhury v. Bangladesh, 14 BLD (AD) 93 (1983)
Facts: Petitioner challenged administrative action affecting his rights.
Holding: The court emphasized that the petitioner must establish a personal interest or legal injury.
Significance: Affirmed the need for direct interest in writ petitions.
2. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh, 47 DLR 200 (1995)
Facts: PIL was filed challenging environmental harm.
Holding: The court recognized public interest standing where fundamental rights of the public at large are involved.
Significance: Expanded standing principles to include PIL, permitting non-directly affected persons to file writs for public welfare.
3. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) v. Bangladesh, 59 DLR 575 (2007)
Facts: BLAST filed PILs to protect rights of marginalized groups.
Holding: The court allowed broad standing in PILs where fundamental rights of disadvantaged groups are at stake.
Significance: Reinforced liberal approach to standing in matters of public importance.
4. Sheikh Hasina v. Bangladesh, 38 DLR 16 (1986)
Facts: Political leader filed writ petition for enforcement of constitutional rights.
Holding: The court held that standing requires showing of substantial legal interest.
Significance: Confirmed that personal stake is necessary in private interest cases.
5. Mr. A.K.M. Bashirullah v. Bangladesh, 35 DLR 282 (1983)
Facts: Petitioner challenged government action without direct injury.
Holding: The court rejected the petition for lack of standing.
Significance: Reaffirmed that courts do not entertain petitions by strangers without legal injury unless public interest is involved.
6. Ashraf Hossain v. Bangladesh, 42 DLR 202 (1990)
Facts: PIL filed for protection of fundamental rights of prisoners.
Holding: Court recognized standing in cases affecting vulnerable groups unable to represent themselves.
Significance: Strengthened the concept of locus standi in PIL for protecting human rights.
Summary of Standing Principles with Case Law
| Principle | Explanation | Key Case |
|---|---|---|
| Direct Personal Interest | Petitioner must have suffered or threatened with legal injury. | Aminul Islam Chowdhury |
| Public Interest Litigation | Courts permit PIL where fundamental rights or public welfare are at stake. | Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque, BLAST |
| No Vexatious Petition | Courts reject petitions without genuine interest or legal injury. | Mr. A.K.M. Bashirullah |
| Liberal Standing for Vulnerable Groups | Standing extended to protect rights of marginalized/unrepresented persons. | Ashraf Hossain |
| Substantial Legal Interest | Political and public figures must show legal interest, not merely political motives. | Sheikh Hasina |
Practical Application
When filing a writ petition before the High Court Division, the petitioner should clearly establish:
How they are personally affected (direct injury).
Or, in PIL, how the petition concerns a matter of public importance or fundamental rights.
Courts maintain a flexible but principled approach, balancing access to justice with judicial efficiency.
RELATED Blog
0 comments