HC asks why failure to appoint ombudsman should not be declared unconstitutional

An ombudsman has the power to oversee and recommend measures against administrative corruption and the harassment of citizens

The High Court has questioned why successive governments have failed for decades to appoint an ombudsman to tackle administrative abuse and public harassment, asking why the prolonged inaction should not be declared unconstitutional.

The bench of Justice Bhishmadev Chakrabortty and Justice Abdur Rahman issued the rule following a primary hearing on a writ petition filed by Supreme Court lawyer Ishrat Hasan.

The court also asked the government to explain why it should not be directed to make the office of the ombudsman fully functional.

The cabinet secretary, along with the secretaries of the Law and Justice Division and the Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division have been ordered to respond to the rule.

Ishrat emphasised the crucial role of the office in ensuring public accountability.

"The primary responsibility of an ombudsman is to investigate complaints on irregularities, harassment, bureaucratic delays, and public suffering in government institutions, thereby improving the quality of service and recommending actions against those responsible," Ishrat told bdnews24.com.

She noted that Article 77 of the Constitution explicitly mandates the establishment of an ombudsman to curb bureaucratic high-handedness, injustice, and unnecessary delays, thereby fostering good governance.

Although parliament enacted the “Ombudsman Act” in 1980 to give effect to this provision, successive governments have failed to fill the post since Bangladesh's independence.

"Despite a clear constitutional mandate and statutory law, no government has actually appointed an ombudsman over all these years,” she said.

“The law grants this office the power to oversee and recommend measures against administrative corruption and the harassment of citizens. The office even holds certain judicial powers, such as the authority to issue summons," Ishrat added.

According to the petitioner, a formal legal notice was served to the respondents before the petition was filed, but it yielded no response.

The petition was subsequently moved to challenge the state's persistent inaction.

The petition argues that the government's failure to appoint an ombudsman and establish the office directly violates Articles 7, 11, 27, 31, and 32 of the Constitution, which guarantee the rule of law, democracy, equality, and protection of the law for citizens.