Election disputes frequently take so long to resolve that contested lawmakers complete their full parliamentary terms before courts deliver a final verdict, raising persistent questions about the effectiveness of legal remedies in electoral politics.
A notable example dates back to the 2001 general election, when Delawar Hossain Sayeedi of Jamaat-e-Islami defeated Awami League candidate Sudhangshu Shekhar Halder in the Pirojpur-1 constituency by a margin of 33,377 votes. Alleging irregularities, including false disclosures of campaign financing and illegal practices, Halder challenged the result in an election tribunal and sought to be declared the winner.
Sayeedi denied the allegations, arguing that the election had been conducted lawfully under the supervision of the Election Commission (EC) and security agencies. In September 2003, a High Court tribunal led by Justice Mohammad Iman Ali annulled Sayeedi’s parliamentary membership. However, the Appellate Division later stayed the order, allowing him to remain in office. By the time the case ran its course, he had already served his full term as a member of parliament.
This pattern is not unusual. Election petitions often become prolonged legal battles, moving between High Court and Appellate Division over several years. During that time, the contested MP continues to attend parliament, take part in lawmaking, and carry out constituency responsibilities, while the losing candidate remains engaged in litigation.
Another example comes from the ninth parliamentary election, where Jamaat candidate Anwarul Islam lost the Dinajpur-6 seat to Awami League’s Azizul Haque Chowdhury by just 858 votes. Islam challenged the result, alleging irregularities, but before the case could be resolved, the schedule for the next election was announced, effectively rendering the petition obsolete. His lawyer told TIMES of Bangladesh that the case was dropped from the cause list as it had become “ineffective.”
Following the 13th parliamentary election, allegations of irregularities have once again triggered a wave of legal challenges. Candidates from Jamaat-e-Islami, BNP, and several independents have filed petitions across multiple constituencies. Under the Representation of the People Order (RPO) 1972, an election tribunal led by a High Court judge has begun hearing these disputes.
By mid-March, at least 44 petitions had been filed. Among them is a case from Dhaka-10, where Jamaat candidate Jasim Uddin Sarkar alleges widespread irregularities, including ballot counting discrepancies, expulsion of polling agents, and unsigned result sheets. The High Court has accepted the petition and fixed a date for hearing.
The legal process begins with the court admitting a petition and ordering the preservation of ballots and related materials. Notices are issued to the returned candidate and other respondents, including EC. After hearings, the tribunal delivers a verdict, which can be challenged in Appellate Division through appeals and review petitions before reaching finality.
In theory, the law mandates swift disposal. RPO requires that election petitions be heard as quickly as possible, ideally within six months. Courts are also instructed to avoid unnecessary adjournments.
In practice, however, delays are routine. Senior lawyer Muhammad Belayet Hossain told TIMES that although the law calls for speedy trials, “it does not happen in reality,” pointing to a shortage of courts, bench changes, and overlapping jurisdictions as key obstacles.
Another election law expert, Mohammad Hossain Lipu, was blunter. “By the time the judgment comes, the parliament’s term is already over—what is the benefit then?” he told TIMES, describing the situation as having turned into “a mockery.”
Legal experts say structural issues are at the heart of the problem. Tribunals often handle multiple types of cases, and benches are sometimes reconstituted midway through proceedings, causing further delays. Some lawyers have called for the establishment of multiple dedicated tribunals with stable jurisdiction to handle election disputes exclusively.
A Supreme Court lawyer, speaking to TIMES, said he had “never seen an election petition resolved within five years,” adding that delays are often exacerbated by a lack of urgency from the parties involved, particularly those in power.
Historically, court rulings overturning parliamentary election results in the country have been rare. While there are examples in local government elections, changes at the national level are exceptional. However, the high number of rejected ballots in recent elections—estimated at around 16 lakh—has led some candidates to believe that recounts could alter outcomes in closely contested seats.
Election Commissioner Abdur Rahmanel Masud told TIMES that all candidates have the right to seek legal remedies. “If a candidate believes the result could change, they can go to court,” he said, adding that judicial review of elections is a standard practice in many countries.
Even when courts do intervene, the impact is limited. Under the legal doctrine of de facto authority, actions taken by an MP during their tenure remain valid, even if their election is later declared invalid. This principle ensures continuity in governance and prevents retrospective disruption of parliamentary decisions.
Lawyer Faizullah Foyez explained to TIMES that once a person serves as an MP, their activities are considered “valid and closed,” meaning they cannot be undone later. Similarly, Supreme Court lawyer Saiful Islam Saif said that while a court may remove an MP or declare a new winner, “the previous MP’s parliamentary activities will not become illegal.”
Ultimately, even if a petitioner succeeds, the remedy is largely symbolic. The court may declare a new winner or order a re-election, but the original term may already have expired, limiting the practical significance of the verdict.
As dozens of new petitions move through the courts following the latest election, the key question remains whether the system can deliver timely justice—or whether, once again, verdicts will arrive only after the political moment has passed.
