The High Court has rejected a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, the law used in Bangladesh for prosecuting crimes against humanity.
A High Court division bench comprising Justice Khizir Ahmed Choudhury and Justice Md Ziaul Haque summarily dismissed the petition on Tuesday.
Supreme Court lawyer Mohammad Mohsen Rashid filed the writ petition on 24 June, challenging the legality of several provisions of the ICT Act.
He also appeared before the court and argued the case himself.
The petition named the secretary of the Law and Justice Division under the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and others as respondents.
In the petition, Rashid argued that certain provisions of the ICT Act were inconsistent with fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the basic principles of justice.
He sought a rule asking why those provisions should not be declared unconstitutional, without legal authority and invalid.
The petitioner said the law had fulfilled its original purpose but raised concerns over the possibility of its future misuse or improper application.
He argued that judicial review was necessary to prevent the law from being used as a tool for politically motivated actions.
Chief Prosecutor of the International Crimes Tribunal Aminul Islam said previous attempts to challenge the legality of the ICT Act through writ petitions had not been accepted by the courts.
Speaking to TIMES of Bangladesh, he said numerous cases involving allegations of crimes against humanity had been tried under the law since 2010.
The latest petition has revived discussions over the constitutional protection granted to the ICT Act.
On 15 November, 2025, then Chief Prosecutor Mohammad Tajul Islam had said there was no scope to challenge the amended International Crimes (Tribunals) Act as the law was protected by the Constitution.
He had said the 1973 ICT Act had received “blanket protection” under the Constitution and its validity could not be questioned before a constitutional court.
He also maintained that individuals facing trial under the Act could not seek constitutional remedies over alleged violations of fundamental rights.
Mohammad Mohsen Rashid had previously appeared in an International Crimes Tribunal-related case.
During the trial proceedings involving allegations of crimes against humanity during the 1971 Liberation War, he represented Awami League leader Matia Chowdhury in a contempt of court case.
