Your Right to Leave and Return to Bangladesh — and How to Challenge a Travel Ban
Every citizen of Bangladesh has a constitutional right to leave the country and to come back. The State may limit that right, but only through a law, and only on reasonable grounds. When an officer stops you at the airport without a lawful order, the courts can and do step in.
Travel bans have become common in Bangladesh. Courts order them almost every week on applications by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). At the same time, many people are turned back at the immigration desk without any written order. Some are never told why. This article explains what the law protects, when a restriction is lawful, and what you can do if one is imposed on you or if you fear one.
The right: Article 36 of the Constitution
Article 36 of the Constitution of Bangladesh provides:
"Subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest, every citizen shall have the right to move freely throughout Bangladesh, to reside and settle in any place therein and to leave and re-enter Bangladesh."
The right to go abroad and return is therefore a fundamental right. It is not a privilege the government grants. The Appellate Division confirmed this in Hussain Muhammad Ershad v. Bangladesh (2001) 21 BLD (AD) 69, holding that the "right to travel abroad is a fundamental right as conceived under Article 36 of our Constitution."
The right is not absolute. A restriction is valid only if it passes three tests:
Imposed by law. It must come from a statute or a court order made under a statute. An internal memo, a phone call or a "list" is not law.
Reasonable. It must be proportionate to its purpose and not arbitrary.
In the public interest. It must serve a genuine public purpose, such as securing a person's presence for trial. Harassment or political motive does not qualify.
The Appellate Division put the first test bluntly in Durnity Daman Commission v. G.B. Hossain, 74 DLR (AD) 1 (2022): "The executive instructions without having the sanction of any statutory power cannot be construed as law." It also held that the courts, not the government, have the final say on whether a restriction is reasonable.
Other fundamental rights work alongside Article 36. Article 27 guarantees equality before law. Article 31 guarantees the protection of law. Article 32 protects personal liberty. Article 44 gives every citizen the right to move the High Court Division to enforce these rights.
When the State can lawfully stop you
In practice, a lawful restriction on foreign travel usually comes from one of three sources.
| Source | How it works | Your main remedy |
|---|---|---|
| Court order on an ACC or police application | The ACC or an investigating agency applies to a court, usually the Senior Special Judge's court in Dhaka, saying the person may leave and hamper an investigation. The court then orders a travel ban (Dhaka Tribune). If the ACC stops someone in an emergency by a letter to immigration, the appropriate court must confirm the restriction within 3 working days (G.B. Hossain). | Apply to the same court to recall or vary the order, or for permission to travel. If refused, challenge it before the higher court. |
| Bail conditions in a criminal case | A court granting bail may require the accused not to leave the country without its permission. | Apply to that court for permission to travel for a stated period. |
| Passport action under the Bangladesh Passport Order, 1973 | The Passport Authority may refuse a passport on the grounds in Article 6. One ground, Article 6(1)(e), applies where the applicant is evading or likely to evade a criminal case, or a criminal court has prohibited departure. A passport may be impounded under Article 7(2), but Article 7(4) requires a written statement of reasons, and a copy must be given to the holder. | Appeal under Article 10 of the Order, which allows no appeal against the Government's own orders, or file a writ petition. The writ does not have to wait for the appeal (Ershad). |
What these have in common is a written order made by a court or authority acting under a specific law. A letter from an investigating agency is not, by itself, law. If no such order exists, an immigration officer has no power to stop a citizen with a valid passport and visa.
Unlawful bans: what the courts have said
For three decades, the Supreme Court has held to the same line. The State may restrict travel only through a law and only on material it can show the court. It must also treat the person fairly. The leading decisions, in date order:
Government of Bangladesh v. Zeenat Hossain, 1 BLC (AD) 89 (1996)
The government refused a passport to a woman who was on bail pending her appeal against a criminal conviction. It relied on Article 6(1)(e) of the Passport Order, claiming she might evade the appeal. The Appellate Division refused the government leave to appeal against the High Court Division's order directing that a passport be issued. Its reasons:
When challenged in court, the authority must produce material from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the applicant is evading, or likely to evade, the proceeding.
An unsupported fear is "merely an ipse dixit", a bare assertion.
Repeatedly invoking "public interest" to defend an individual refusal showed "mala fide in law". Public interest justifies the law, not every order made under it.
Hussain Muhammad Ershad v. Bangladesh, (2001) 21 BLD (AD) 69
On 5 June 2000, the former President was stopped at Zia International Airport on his way to London for medical treatment, and his passport was seized. The seizure rested on a Home Ministry order that was never shown to him or to the court. The Appellate Division, in Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2000 decided on 16 August 2000, ordered the passport returned immediately. It held:
Article 7(4) of the Passport Order requires the authority to record brief written reasons for impounding a passport and to give the holder a copy. Not doing so made the order unlawful.
The rule of audi alteram partem (no one shall be condemned unheard) applies to impounding, even though the Order does not say so expressly.
Withholding the order "is indicative of mala fide".
A person enforcing a fundamental right under Article 102(1) need not first use the appeal under Article 10 of the Passport Order. In any case, that article allows no appeal against an order of the Government itself.
A fear that the holder will not return is not, by itself, a ground for impounding the passport of a citizen travelling for treatment.
Md. Nurul Haque v. Director-General, Department of Immigration and Passports, 2020 (28) BLT (HCD) 74
The elected Vice President of DUCSU paid for an express passport, which was then withheld without explanation. Later, the authority pointed to a pending case over bailable election-related offences. In Writ Petition No. 8591 of 2019, decided on 4 March 2020, the High Court Division held:
The discretion under Article 6(1)(e) "should not be exercised unfettered, unfairly or arbitrarily".
A pending case is not enough where the person is plainly not evading it.
The refusal violated Articles 27, 32 and 36.
The Division directed that the passport be issued within three working days.
Md. Ahsan Habib v. Government of Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 1046 of 2021 (decided 14 March 2021)
A university student in Australia had his passport seized at Shahjalal airport on the strength of an ACC memo. The High Court Division observed that neither the Code of Criminal Procedure nor the ACC Act, 2004 provides for seizing passports. Its guidelines were:
If the ACC restrains a person and seizes a passport in an emergency without a hearing, it must apply to the Senior Special Judge or Special Judge for post-approval, preferably within 15 days.
The judge must notify the person, hear both sides and decide, preferably within 60 days.
The court ordered the passport returned so that the student could continue his studies.
Durnity Daman Commission v. G.B. Hossain, 74 DLR (AD) 1 (2022)
This is now the leading authority on ACC travel bans. The ACC challenged five High Court Division decisions, including Ahsan Habib, that had allowed people under inquiry to travel. The Appellate Division disposed of all five petitions on 27 September 2021 and laid down these principles:
Article 36 is not absolute, but any restriction "must be by way of the law enacted and must be reasonably needed in the public interest".
"Without backing of law imposition of restriction on the freedom of movement by an executive order will be unconstitutional."
The court, not the legislature or the executive, has the final say on what is reasonable.
A restriction must have "a direct or proximate nexus" with the object of the law and must not be excessive.
"Merely because a person is involved in a criminal case, he is not denude of his fundamental rights."
A restriction to stop someone leaving quickly to avoid due process is allowed. However, it is "subject to confirmation by the appropriate Court within a period of 3 working days."
The last point shortens the 15-day window that Ahsan Habib had allowed. If the ACC has stopped you by letter and no court has confirmed the restriction within three working days, it has no lawful basis.
The three women stopped at Shahjalal airport (High Court Division, 2026)
On 8 August 2026, three adult women with valid passports, tickets and travel documents were stopped from boarding a flight to a conference in Nepal. Officers reportedly questioned them about their marital status and family consent (Daily Waadaa). On 29 September 2026, a bench of Justice KM Kamrul Kader and Justice Fatema Anwar issued a Rule asking why the action should not be declared illegal. The bench also directed immigration not to obstruct the women's future travel without a lawful basis (Dhaka Tribune).
The principle running through these cases is simple: the burden is on the State to show the law under which it acts, and the facts that justify using it. A citizen does not have to justify why they want to travel.
Your legal recourse, step by step
The right remedy depends on whether a lawful order exists. The steps below run from finding out to going to court.
Find out whether a restriction exists. Apply under section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2009 to the Special Branch (Immigration) and the Department of Immigration and Passports. Ask whether any travel ban is recorded against your passport, on whose order and from what date. The officer must reply within 20 working days.
If the RTI request is ignored or refused. You can appeal to the appellate authority and then complain to the Information Commission. These remedies are slow, however, and they cannot stop an officer at the airport.
If a court has ordered the ban. Apply to that same court to withdraw the order or to let you travel for a fixed period. Offer safeguards, such as a return ticket or an undertaking to return. If the court refuses, challenge its order before the higher court. Being involved in a case does not by itself take away your right to travel (G.B. Hossain).
If your passport was refused, revoked or impounded. Ask for the written reasons, which Article 7(4) requires. The authority must have real material for its decision, not an unsupported fear (Zeenat Hossain; Nurul Haque). Then appeal under the Passport Order, or file a writ petition directly, as Ershad allows.
If there is no court order, only an ACC letter or nothing disclosed at all. File a writ petition in the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution. An ACC letter to immigration is not a court order. Unless a court confirms the restriction within 3 working days, it has no lawful basis (G.B. Hossain). Ask the court to declare any unlawful restriction void and to direct the authorities not to obstruct your travel. When a flight is booked, the court can grant an interim direction quickly, often within days.
If you were already stopped. Record the officer's name, the time and what was said, and keep your boarding pass. A writ petition can challenge the stoppage, and the court can order an inquiry, as it did in the 2026 airport case.
If an order of the court is disobeyed. Disobeying the court's direction can be punished as contempt of court.
Timing matters. A writ needs a sworn affidavit and copies of your passport, visa, ticket and any correspondence. Start at least one to two weeks before your departure date.
Checklist before you travel
If you have any reason to fear a ban, for example a pending inquiry, a recent change of job or a public dispute, check the following before your trip:
☐ Your passport is valid for at least six months and has not been reported lost.
☐ Your visa, return ticket and the purpose of your trip are documented.
☐ You know whether any case, inquiry or bail condition concerns you.
☐ You have sent RTI applications early enough for a reply before you fly.
☐ You have a lawyer's contact details ready if you are stopped at the airport.
☐ For a high-risk trip, you have taken advice on filing a writ before departure.
How The Justice Corner can help
A travel ban case is won or lost on speed and preparation. Our team handles the whole process:
RTI applications to Special Branch (Immigration) and the Department of Immigration and Passports.
Applications before the Senior Special Judge's court and other courts to recall a ban or to allow travel.
Urgent writ petitions in the High Court Division, timed to your flight.
Passport refusal, revocation and impounding matters.
Follow-up, including contempt proceedings, if a court order is ignored.
If you have a trip coming up and are unsure whether you will be allowed to board, contact us early. The earlier we start, the more options you have.
Contact: [phone] · [email] · [office address]
This article is general information about the law of Bangladesh as of October 2026. It is not legal advice for any particular case. Please consult a lawyer about your own circumstances.
Sources
HC questions why three women were stopped from travelling abroad — Dhaka Tribune, 30 September 2026
Can an unmarried woman be stopped from travelling abroad alone? — The Daily Star
Empowered, yet unapproved — Daily Waadaa, 2 October 2026
Travel ban imposed on Jubo League leader Anwarul, wife — Dhaka Tribune, 6 October 2026
The Bangladesh Passport Order, 1973 — Laws of Bangladesh
Judgments cited
Government of Bangladesh v. Zeenat Hossain, Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 26 of 1996 (AD), decided 18.01.1996, 1 BLC (AD) 89
Hussain Muhammad Ershad v. Bangladesh, Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2000 (AD), decided 16.08.2000, (2001) 21 BLD (AD) 69; 7 BLC (AD) 67
Md. Nurul Haque v. Director-General, Department of Immigration and Passports, Writ Petition No. 8591 of 2019 (HCD), decided 04.03.2020, 2020 (28) BLT (HCD) 74
Md. Ahsan Habib v. Government of Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 1046 of 2021 (HCD), decided 14.03.2021, 9 LNJ 62; 27 ALR (HCD) 102
Durnity Daman Commission v. G.B. Hossain, Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1340 of 2021 and others (AD), decided 27.09.2021, 74 DLR (AD) 1; 18 ADC 682