Article 102 allows the High Court Division to enforce fundamental rights and supervise the legality of public power. It is available where a public authority violates a fundamental right, exceeds its lawful authority, fails to perform a mandatory duty or makes a decision through a legally defective process.
Article 102 is not a general appeal against every government decision. The Court primarily examines legality, jurisdiction and procedural fairness rather than replacing a lawful administrative decision with its own preferred result.
Two distinct branches of Article 102
Article 102(1) concerns enforcement of the fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution. It allows a person aggrieved to seek appropriate directions or orders against any person or authority, including a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Republic.
Article 44 guarantees the right to approach the High Court Division under Article 102(1).
Article 102(2) provides the wider judicial-review jurisdiction. It allows the High Court Division, where no other equally efficacious remedy is provided by law, to make specified orders against persons performing public functions and to examine unlawful custody or unlawful occupation of public office.
The distinction matters. A claim under Article 102(1) must identify a genuine infringement of a Part III right. A claim under Article 102(2) must ordinarily address the constitutional requirement concerning another equally efficacious remedy.
What judicial review examines
Judicial review asks whether the authority acted lawfully. It does not ordinarily ask whether judges would have made the same policy or administrative choice.
A public decision may be challenged where the authority had no power to make it, misunderstood the limits of its jurisdiction or exercised a power for a purpose that the law did not permit.
Review may also be available where the authority ignored a mandatory statutory condition, considered legally irrelevant matters, failed to consider a matter that the law required it to consider, acted under the direction of another body rather than exercising its own judgment, or adopted a predetermined position.
A decision may also be unlawful where a person was denied notice or a fair opportunity to respond, where the decision-maker was legally disqualified by bias, or where reasons required by law were not recorded or communicated.
Article 31 reinforces this framework by guaranteeing treatment in accordance with law. Article 26 provides that laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void to the extent of the inconsistency and prohibits the State from making laws inconsistent with those rights.
Illegality, procedural unfairness and irrationality
Illegality arises when an authority acts outside the legal power granted to it. For example, a ministry cannot impose a disqualification that the governing statute does not authorise.
Procedural unfairness arises where the authority fails to follow a required process. The process may be stated in legislation, rules or regulations, or may arise from the principles of natural justice.
A decision may also be reviewable where it is so disconnected from the evidence, statutory purpose or relevant considerations that it cannot be defended as a lawful exercise of discretion. Courts use considerable caution in this area because judicial review is not a merits appeal.
The importance of the statutory scheme
Every judicial-review case should begin with the law that gives the authority its power. The statute may specify who decides, what factors must be considered, whether notice is required, whether reasons must be given and whether an appeal is available.
The petitioner should obtain the complete version of the statute, rules, regulations and relevant gazette notifications in force on the date of the decision.
It is not enough to say that an authority behaved unfairly. The petition should explain what legal power existed, what legal limit applied and how the authority crossed that limit.
Practical steps before approaching the Court
The affected person should obtain the full written decision and preserve the complete administrative record. This includes the original application, supporting documents, notices, responses, hearing records and subsequent correspondence.
A written representation may be appropriate, especially where the problem may result from a clerical error or failure to consider a document. The representation should state the legal and factual problem without unnecessary accusations.
The person should check whether the statute provides an appeal, revision, review or specialised tribunal. For Article 102(2), an equally efficacious statutory remedy may make immediate judicial review unavailable.
Where urgent interim protection is required, the advocate should preserve evidence of the urgency, the threatened harm and the inadequacy of later compensation.
Leading Supreme Court authority
In Bangladesh v Professor Golam Azam, the Appellate Division reviewed a citizenship decision made under Article 3 of the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order, 1972. The Court concluded that a decision affecting citizenship status could not lawfully be made on relevant disputed matters without giving the affected person an opportunity to be heard.
The judgment illustrates that judicial review can address both the legal limits of administrative power and the fairness of the decision-making process. It does not convert the Court into the original citizenship authority.
In Government of Bangladesh v Sontosh Kumar Shaha, the Appellate Division clarified the distinction between Article 102(1) and Article 102(2). It also stressed that constitutional claims require precise factual pleadings.
When Article 102 may not be appropriate
The High Court Division may decline relief where an effective statutory remedy exists, the petition is brought after unexplained delay, the applicant has concealed material facts or the dispute requires a full trial of contested evidence.
The Court may also refuse to intervene where the alleged error is merely a disagreement about the weight given to evidence and the authority acted within its lawful jurisdiction.
Some matters fall within specialised constitutional or statutory forums. Public-service disputes governed by Article 117 and administrative tribunal legislation are a major example.
Common mistakes
Common mistakes include treating judicial review as an ordinary appeal, relying on general fairness without identifying the governing law, bypassing a statutory appeal and making allegations of bad faith without strong evidence.
A further mistake is asking the Court to make the original administrative decision where the statute gives that decision to another authority. The usual public-law remedy may be to set aside the unlawful decision and require lawful reconsideration.
Law updated as of 13 July 2026.
Primary sources: Constitution of Bangladesh, Articles 26, 31, 44, 102 and 117; Bangladesh v Professor Golam Azam, 46 DLR (AD) 192; Government of Bangladesh v Sontosh Kumar Shaha, 6 SCOB (AD) 20.
Legal-information disclaimer: This article provides general legal information, not legal advice. Whether an administrative decision is reviewable depends on the governing statute, evidence, available remedies and timing. Consult a licensed Supreme Court advocate.