The American “Case” or “Controversy” Requirement and the Bangladeshi “Aggrieved Person” Rule: A Comparative Study

Abstract

Article 102 (2) of the Bangladesh Constitution speaks of an “aggrieved person” invoking writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The expression “aggrieved person” is commonly understood to involve only the issue of locus standi. This article argues that besides locus standi, ripeness and mootness may also be the forming parts of the expression “aggrieved person”. In this extended meaning, the expression “aggrieved person” of Bangladeshi jurisdiction is somewhat similar to the Article III “case” or “controversy” requirement of American jurisdiction. The article thus both interprets and compares “aggrieved person” with the American “case” or “controversy” requirement. Ripeness and mootness when form parts of “aggrieved person”, become law of the Constitution under Article 102 (2) and not mere rules of practice the Supreme Court usually follow in writ jurisdiction. The article thus develops knowledge of constitutional law in the context of interpreting “aggrieved person”. The knowledge it develops may be utilized by the Bangladesh Supreme Court in interpreting “aggrieved person” in a properly constituted case before it. In this way, the article may have practical interest and utility besides its academic value. Besides the Court, any person interested in constitutional law may also be benefited from properly knowing the scope or extent of the expression “aggrieved person” of Article 102 (2) of the Bangladesh Constitution.