Women’s reform report: HC rejects writ challenging some recommendations

The High Court yesterday summarily rejected a writ petition challenging the legality of several recommendations made in the Women's Affairs Reform Commission's report.

The bench of Justice Fatema Najib and Justice Sikder Mahmudur Razi dismissed the petition, terming it "premature" as the recommendations have not yet been implemented.

On May 19, writ petitioner Rowshan Ali, a Supreme Court lawyer, argued that the proposals in chapters three, four, six, 10, 11 and 12 of the commission's report conflict with Islamic Shariah, offend religious sentiments, and are inconsistent with the constitution.

He urged the court to direct the formation of a committee comprising constitutional experts, Islamic scholars and civil society representatives to review and advise on any future reforms concerning religious and family laws.

Rowshan filed the petition as a public interest litigation on May 4, stating that chapter 11 of the report proposes equal inheritance rights for men and women, which he claimed contradicts provisions in the Holy Quran.

He also objected to the report's recommendation to ban polygamy, arguing that it is a permitted provision under Islamic law. Referring to article 41 of the constitution, he contended that such a restriction would infringe on the right to freely practise religion.

Appearing for the state, Additional Attorney General Aneek R Haque opposed the petition and urged the court to reject it, arguing that the commission's recommendations were still at a premature stage and that any cause of action would arise only if the government decides to adopt them.

"How can the recommendations of the commission be challenged by a writ petition? The recommendations should be left to the government."

Aneek also argued that the petitioner lacked locus standi (the legal standing to bring such a petition), as he is not directly aggrieved by the recommendations. "Therefore, the writ was not maintainable and should be summarily rejected."

Fawzia Karim Firoze, a senior Supreme Court lawyer, also opposed the petition, supporting Aneek's arguments.

In a press release, Shirin Huq, chair of the Women's Affairs Reform Commission, said, "All members of the commission are committed to ensuring women's rights and welcome rational and constructive discussions and criticism with all stakeholders. We are satisfied with the court's decision [to reject the writ petition] and call on all relevant stakeholders to work together towards a just and equal society so that our recommendations can be meaningfully discussed."

Lawyers representing the commission also expressed satisfaction with the court's decision. "We, as lawyers instructed by the Chair of the Women's Affairs Reform Commission, are pleased to note that a divisional bench of the High Court, comprising Justice Fatema Najib and Justice Sikder Mahmudur Razi, has summarily rejected Writ Petition No-7426 of 2025, on the grounds of it being premature. The writ had sought to challenge the constitutionality of certain recommendations of the commission, even though those had neither been adopted nor implemented by the interim government."

The statement, signed by Supreme Court lawyers Sara Hossain, Rashna Imam, Qazi Zahed Iqbal, Manzur Al-Matin, Abeda Gulrukh and Priya Ahsan Chowdhury, concluded, "We hope there will be no further efforts to waste the court's valuable time on this matter, and that all concerned stakeholders engage in reasoned and constructive debate on the commission's recommendations to ensure rights and justice for women."