High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Legality of Enforced Disappearance Commission Reports

The High Court on Monday dismissed a writ petition challenging the legality of two interim reports submitted by the commission formed to investigate enforced disappearances during the tenure of the interim government. A bench comprising Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Fatema Anwar issued the order following a hearing.

The Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances was established by the Cabinet Division through a gazette notification issued on September 15, 2024. The five-member body subsequently submitted an interim report on December 14, 2024, followed by a second interim report on June 4, 2025.

The legal challenge was initiated by Naznin Parveen Swapna, a resident of Naogaon Sadar Upazila. The petitioner argued that the commission’s enabling circular mandated the submission of a final report upon the conclusion of its investigation. Consequently, the petitioner questioned the legal authority of the commission to issue interim reports before completing its mandate.

The petition was previously presented before another High Court bench, but the matter was referred to the Chief Justice after one of the presiding judges recused themselves from the case. The Chief Justice subsequently assigned the petition to the bench of Justice Ahmed Sohel for adjudication.

International Crimes Tribunal Orders Arrest of Ziaul Ahsan and Tareq Sayeed Mohammad in Enforced Disappearance and Murder Cases

Read Article

During the proceedings, lawyer Azizur Rahman Dulu represented the petitioner, while the state was represented by Deputy Attorney Generals Khan Ziaur Rahman and Mahfuz Bin Yusuf. Following the dismissal, Deputy Attorney General Mahfuz Bin Yusuf confirmed the court’s decision to reject the petition outright.

The writ petition had requested that the court declare the two interim reports unlawful and issued without legal authority, citing Section 3 of the Inquiry Commission Act of 1956. The petition named four respondents, including the Law Secretary, the Cabinet Secretary, and the chairperson of the commission.

Regarding the court’s ruling, advocate Azizur Rahman stated that he would consult with his client to determine whether to file an appeal with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.