High Court issues rule over mobile financial service charges and calls for regulatory legislation

Photo Collected

A+ A A-

The High Court has issued a rule asking authorities to explain why the arbitrary and excessive service charges imposed by mobile financial service (MFS) providers—including bKash, Rocket, and Nagad—should not be declared illegal and unconstitutional. The bench, comprised of Justice Md. Mujibur Rahman Miah and Justice Rezaul Karim, issued the directive on Sunday following a preliminary hearing on a writ petition.

The court has also inquired why the government should not be ordered to draft specific legislation governing mobile financial services to ensure consumer protection, transparency, and the provision of fair, reasonable, and affordable services. Respondents, including the finance secretary, the posts and telecommunications secretary, and the Governor of Bangladesh Bank, have been granted four weeks to provide a formal response.

The writ petition was filed on July 10 by Supreme Court lawyer Md. Obaidullah Al Mamun, who appeared in court to represent his case, while Deputy Attorney General Mohammad Abdus Samad Azad represented the state.

Kushtia murder suspect arrested after hiding in grain silo

Read More

Lawyer Al Mamun argued that current MFS operations, which are regulated by the 2022 Bangladesh Mobile Financial Service (MFS) regulations, impose charges in a manner that contradicts the regulations’ intent. He noted that while traditional banking transactions typically involve a fixed fee structure, MFS providers charge a percentage-based fee. For instance, transferring one lakh taka between bank accounts via a banking app often costs only 10 taka, whereas the same transfer through bKash, Rocket, or Nagad incurs a fee of 10 taka per thousand, amounting to 1,000 taka.

The petitioner contended that mobile financial services were originally intended to provide banking access to unbanked populations. He argued that the current high service fees are inconsistent with the core objectives of the service and violate specific provisions within the 2022 regulatory framework, prompting the legal challenge to seek greater accountability and consumer protection.