Jamaat-e-Islami regains political status after Bangladesh top court reverses ban
Listen to article
Bangladesh's Supreme Court has reinstated the political registration of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, overturning a 2013 High Court ruling that had barred the country's largest religious party from participating in elections for over a decade.
The ruling, issued on Sunday by a four-member Appellate Division bench headed by Chief Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed, directed the Election Commission to immediately restore Jamaat's registration and resolve all outstanding matters, including the allocation of its election symbol.
Jamaat had lost its legal status under the premiership of Sheikh Hasina, who was removed from power following mass protests in August 2024 and subsequently went into exile in India. In her final months in office, Hasina also imposed an executive ban on the party in August 2023.
READ: Protests grip Bangladesh
The transitional government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, which assumed office after Hasina's ouster, had revoked that executive order, setting the stage for Sunday's legal reversal.
'With the verdict, a multiparty democracy and inclusive election has been acknowledged,' said Jamaat's lawyer, Mohammad Shishir Manir, speaking outside the court. He added that the 2013 decision had been politically motivated and that the new ruling reflected judicial fairness.
The verdict follows the Supreme Court's May 27 decision to overturn the conviction of senior Jamaat leader A.T.M. Azharul Islam, who had been sentenced to death in 2014 for alleged war crimes during Bangladesh's 1971 war of independence. Islam was released on May 28 after spending over a decade in prison.
READ: Bangladesh begins first trial of Sheikh Hasina aides
Jamaat-e-Islami had supported Pakistan during the 1971 war, a stance that remains controversial in Bangladesh. The party was long opposed by the Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina and her father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country's founding leader.
The ruling opens the way for Jamaat to contest in the upcoming 13th parliamentary elections, expected later this year.
In a broader shift, the Awami League itself was banned by the interim government in May pending trial over its alleged role in suppressing last year's anti-quota protests that led to Hasina's removal.
READ MORE: Hasina blamed for BD deadly crackdown
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
JI condemns KE in citywide protests
Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) staged citywide protests on Monday against K-Electric's (KE's) load shedding, approval of a harsh multi-year tariff, and recovery of line losses from ordinary consumers. Demonstrations were held at K-E's Integrated Business Centers (IBCs) and 11 other key locations, with protesters raising slogans and carrying placards against KE, NEPRA, the government nexus, and authorities, while district chiefs and other officials addressed the assemblies. At a protest outside Liaquatabad Post Office, JI Karachi Ameer Monem Zafar Khan, stated that citizens of the city are enduring hardships due to long hours of load shedding amid sweltering heat. He stated that, in Malir, under JI, a sit-in has continued at a KE IBC for 14 consecutive days, but he wants to clarify that JI has no personal enmity with anyone, and struggles for the citizens.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
PM replies to queries in defamation suit
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif speaking during a Youm-e-Tashakur ceremony to commemorate Operation Bunyanum Marsoos in Islamabad on May 16, 2025. Photo: ISPR The cross-examination of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif continued on Monday in the Rs10 billion defamation case, he had filed against PTI founder Imran Khan over the latter's claim that Shehbaz offered him bribe for withdrawing the Panama papers case. Shehbaz appeared in the Lahore district court via a video link. He replied to the queries of Imran's counsel which revolved around Shehbaz's affidavit, content, its institution, stamps, attestation and some other aspects of the case. Shehbaz told the court that the then prime minister Imran Khan had not made those accusations in front of him but he seemed to be making these allegations on TV programmes.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Punishment must be proportionate: SC
The Supreme Court has ruled that proportionality must be applied with discipline, care and sensitivity to context, especially in cases involving fundamental rights and human dignity. In a service matter involving a sub-inspector, the apex court stressed that the principle of proportionality offers a structured framework for judicial review of administrative actions. The four-page judgment, authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, explained that the principle of proportionality provides a structured framework for judicial review of administrative actions. "Developed across various constitutional jurisdictions, it involves a four-step test: (i) the measure must pursue a legitimate aim; (ii) be suitable to achieve that aim; (iii) be necessary, in that no less restrictive alternative exists; and (iv) strike a fair balance between the measure's impact on individual rights and the public interest." This court has recently introduced and adopted this four-stage test to assess the legality and fairness of administrative and disciplinary decisions. Such a framework ensures that any interference with rights is justified, necessary, and lawful," reads the four-page order. The judgment was passed in a service matter where the Punjab Service Tribunal had partially allowed the appeal of a sub-inspector and modified the penalty from a two-stage to a one-stage reduction in pay through an order dated February 2, 2016. According to the tribunal, while an investigation had been conducted, the prosecution "failed to produce even a shred of evidence" to substantiate the allegations. A division bench of the apex court, led by Justice Shah, heard the sub-inspector's appeal against the tribunal's ruling. The order noted that despite these clear findings, the tribunal opted only to reduce the penalty rather than exonerate the petitioner. "It appears that the Tribunal relied, albeit implicitly, on the principle of proportionality, finding the original penalty disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. However, this application was both legally flawed and logically inconsistent with its own conclusion when no misconduct was established. The Tribunal failed to properly exercise its discretion under Section 5 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, which empowers it to confirm, set aside, vary, or modify impugned orders. While the Tribunal has authority to vary the punishment in appropriate cases, such discretion must be exercised judiciously grounded in the record, legal standards, and principles of fairness," the order stated. The court noted that judicial interference in disciplinary penalties is only warranted when the punishment is "arbitrary, perverse, or based on irrelevant considerations". "Once the Tribunal found that the allegations were wholly unsubstantiated, the only lawful outcome was to exonerate the petitioner." The judgment further elaborated that proportionality fosters a stable and systematic method for constitutional adjudication.
