A writ petition has been formally filed with the High Court of Bangladesh seeking a comprehensive investigation into the activities and governance of the interim government led by Professor Dr Muhammad Yunus during its 18-month tenure. Following a preliminary hearing on Sunday, 17 May 2026, a High Court bench comprising Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Fatema Anwar deferred the matter, scheduling the formal announcement of its order for Thursday, 21 May 2026.
Court Proceedings and Legal Representation
During the chamber hearing, the petitioners were represented by senior advocate M.K. Rahman and the petitioning lawyer Mohsin Rashid. The state’s legal position was presented by Attorney General Md Ruhul Quddus Kazal.
The division bench reviewed the structural arguments raised by the petitioners concerning institutional accountability before fixing the upcoming date for the judicial ruling. The case brings under judicial scrutiny the administrative and economic decisions executed by the non-elected interim authority over the specified year-and-a-half period.
Key Legal Figures Involved in the High Court Writ Petition
The judicial, legal, and state representatives participating in the ongoing High Court proceedings are detailed below:
| Serial Number | Name of Individual | Institutional Role / Legal Capacity |
| 1 | Professor Dr Muhammad Yunus | Chief Adviser of the Interim Government under scrutiny |
| 2 | Justice Ahmed Sohel | Senior Member of the presiding High Court Bench |
| 3 | Justice Fatema Anwar | Member of the presiding High Court Bench |
| 4 | M.K. Rahman | Senior Counsel representing the petitioners |
| 5 | Mohsin Rashid | Petitioning Lawyer and Counsel for the petitioners |
| 6 | Md Ruhul Quddus Kazal | Attorney General representing the State |
Arguments and Statutory Framework
Following the adjournment of the court session, advocate M.K. Rahman outlined the core objectives of the writ petition to members of the press. He stated that the legal challenge was instituted to investigate an alleged breakdown of order across multiple vital sectors of the state—including the national economy and healthcare infrastructure—during the 18 months of the interim administration’s rule.
The petitioners argue that a formal commission should be constituted under the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act. According to Rahman, the establishment of such a commission is imperative to preserve constitutional continuity and to prevent the unlawful overthrow of democratically elected governments by unconstitutional entities in the future.
Co-petitioner and counsel Mohsin Rashid clarified that the petition seeks a thorough investigation into all significant administrative events that transpired during the designated period. He noted that while the petition mandates the inquiry, the precise operational framework and methodology of the investigation remain within the executive discretion of the state.
During the hearing, Attorney General Md Ruhul Quddus Kazal requested an extension from the court to seek formal instructions and policy clarifications from the government. The petitioning counsel expressed agreement with this request, stating that it is appropriate for the state’s chief law officer to obtain comprehensive institutional directives from the executive branch before the High Court issues its formal order on Thursday.