ARTICLE TEXT

A Division Bench of the High Court Division has held that strikes and hartals called in protest against court verdicts are illegal and unconstitutional. On 13 September 2026 the bench made absolute a rule that had been pending for more than nine years. It directed the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Bangladesh Road Transport Authority (BRTA) and the Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation (BRTC) to take legal action, including criminal proceedings, against anyone who calls such a strike.

How the Case Began

The case goes back to August 2011. On the Dhaka–Aricha highway at Ghior in Manikganj, a Delux Paribahan bus collided with a microbus. Five people died, including the filmmaker Tareque Masud and the media personality Mishuk Munier. On 22 February 2017, an Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the bus driver. Transport owners and workers responded to the verdict by calling a strike.

The human rights organisation Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) filed a public interest writ petition. On 1 March 2017 the High Court Division issued a rule and, as an interim measure, directed that the strike be withdrawn within 24 hours. That rule has now been disposed of.

The Judgment

The court’s reasoning rests on Article 112 of the Constitution, which provides that all authorities, executive and judicial, in the Republic shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. According to press reports, the bench said that “all executive and judicial authorities are bound to comply with Supreme Court verdicts and orders under Article 112 of the Constitution.” It stressed that court judgments and orders bind everyone. A person aggrieved by a verdict has a lawful remedy: an appeal or revision to a higher court. A strike or hartal intended to put pressure on the courts, or to punish society for a judicial outcome, is not a lawful alternative.

Senior Advocate Manzill Murshid appeared for HRPB, with Advocates Sanjoy Mondal and Ripan Barai. Deputy Attorney General Mohammad Ahsan Habib represented the State. Advocates Asiful Haque and Md Rafiul Islam appeared for the BRTC and the BRTA respectively.

Reading the Judgment

Three points are worth noting. First, the judgment treats pressure on the courts through collective action as a question of constitutional compliance, not merely of public order. Article 112 is usually cited when the executive is slow to implement an order. Here it is used against private organisations whose conduct threatens the effectiveness of judicial decisions. Second, the ruling should be read alongside Article 111, which makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding. Together, the two provisions support the view that the finality of a judgment cannot be bargained away on the streets. Third, the rights of assembly and association in Articles 37 and 38 are not absolute. They are subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of public order. A strike designed to overturn a conviction by force of numbers sits very uneasily with those guarantees.

The directions name transport bodies because they were the parties before the court. The principle stated, however, is general, and it will be cited whenever a verdict provokes an organised shutdown. How far it extends to political hartals called against judgments is a question the full text of the judgment may help to answer.

What Comes Next

The full written judgment is awaited. The State or any affected party may seek leave to appeal to the Appellate Division. Practitioners will also watch how the Home Ministry and the transport authorities put the directions into practice.

Also on the Docket: The Separate Secretariat Appeal

Another case about judicial independence is pending in the Appellate Division. In September 2025, the High Court Division struck down the amended Article 116, restored its 1972 text giving the Supreme Court control over subordinate judges, and directed that a separate Supreme Court secretariat be set up. The elected Parliament later repealed the secretariat ordinance through the Supreme Court Secretariat (Repeal) Act 2026. On 9 June 2026, the Appellate Division, headed by Chief Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury, stayed the High Court verdict, and it began hearing the State’s appeal on 16 June. The Honourable will report on the judgment when it is delivered.

Sources

1. The Daily Star, Strikes, hartals against court verdicts illegal: HC (13 September 2026): https://www.thedailystar.net/news/governance/legal-system/news/strikes-hartals-against-court-verdicts-illegal-hc-4271701
2. Dhaka Tribune, HC: Strikes, hartals against court verdicts illegal: https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/court/419727/hc-strikes-hartals-against-court-verdicts
3. Dhaka Tribune, Appellate Division stays HC verdict on SC secretariat: https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/court/412145/appellate-division-stays-hc-verdict-on-sc
4. The Daily Star, Reviewing the separate judicial secretariat judgment: https://www.thedailystar.net/ds/law-our-rights/news/reviewing-the-separate-judicial-secretariat-judgment-4189316