Campaign Poetry vs. Governing Prose: Examining Why Election Manifestos Lack Legal Force

The 13th National Parliament election and the referendum relating to the proposed reforms in Bangladesh is scheduled to be held on February 12 this year. The announcement of election manifestos by political parties has now become a democratic tradition around the world. Election manifesto is a political instrument in which a political party details its future policies, visions, development plans, programs, schemes etc. for the people and country. Therefore, election manifesto is a political commitment to the voters.

In reality, political parties and candidates make a lot of flurry promises before the election while on several occasions they start delaying the implementation of the pledges after being elected and forming the government. Sometimes they fulfill few significant commitments, although in other cases they often talk about various practical challenges to implement them. These manifestos are frequently exaggerated to attract voters and, in most cases, candidates make surreal promises that are beyond their legal authority to accomplish.

Media being the fourth estate can play a crucial role in the fulfillment of the pre-election promises. The political party concerned can be held accountable by the time they have assured us of accomplishing projects and regularly present their progress, plans, challenges, alternative thoughts to overcome them etc. to the citizens. Alongside, the opposition parties can constantly ask questions to the ruling party in the parliament about their pre-election commitments. Consequently, the ruling party or coalition will face continuous surveillance in fulfilling their pledges. Hence, they will be cautious to incorporate achievable commitments that can be implemented within the specific time limit with allocated resources.

As the elections approach, it is obvious that all the major political parties will make numerous pre-election pledges through their manifestos. In the age of social media and artificial intelligence, there are huge prospects that these promises will get new dimensions. As a result, accountability to carry out the pre-election pledges is more important than ever.

From past bitter experiences, the main question in the minds of the people now is whether political parties will be mindful to perform their pre-election pledges after getting power. But what should the people do if they do not fulfill their commitments? Should they wait to answer them through vote again after five years or can they enforce those promises through the courts?

In the United States, there is a mandatory obligation to pronounce the election manifesto two months before the election. Since there is no central election management body, the electoral authorities have no role in this regard. However, in Westminster democracy, parties have to state a financial provision to ensure that their manifesto is realistic and submit it to the court of audit. The election manifesto must include specific policy decisions and their financial consequences in the UK. Moreover, manifestos and other election campaign materials have to follow the rules set by the UK Electoral Commission.

On the other hand, the Election Commission (EC) of our neighboring country Bhutan necessitates all political parties to present their election manifestos before the National Assembly elections. The contents of the manifestos are then reviewed by the EC of Bhutan and, if necessary, excluded by them. Our EC can also take similar initiative by amending the law and adding power to verify whether the manifesto is consistent with democratic values ​​and constitutional spirit of the country and, if necessary, direct the party concerned to bring necessary changes.

Nevertheless, on the question of whether the election manifesto is legally enforceable by the courts, the Delhi High Court in India ruled that the election manifesto is not legally enforceable and subsequently in 2015, the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal against this judgment that confirmed that it is not enforceable by the courts in India.

Some legal scholars believe that election manifestos should be enforceable through the courts to enhance transparency and trust in the democratic system. The existing non-binding nature weakens accountability and transparency. Making manifestos legally binding can, at least in theory, ensure that political parties focus on meeting the actual needs of people.

Nonetheless, there are several ethical, legal, technical and practical challenges to turning election manifestos into legally enforceable contracts. This obligation will create an obstacle, if ever the need arises to form a coalition government. Question will arise as to which party's manifesto will be enforced in court? What will happen if the commitments of the parties in the coalition differ from each other?

Aside, who will be held responsible for the promises? The Prime Minister (PM) or the party/coalition chief or the policy-making forum of the party or the spokesperson who disseminated it? That will create a major complication. Additionally, what if the PM attempts to bring the relevant bill before parliament but the parliament refuses to pass it?

Furthermore, a pre-election promise may no longer be reasonable for implementation in the changed context after the election. Besides, it may not be possible to implement the promise due to various uncertainties including natural disaster, epidemic, war, internal chaos, etc. which may create a difficult situation if there is legal obligation. Due to all these practical complications, the legally binding manifesto may bring new challenges to the country against transparency and accountability.

To resolve the issue, the ruling party or coalition can be forced to comply with their own commitments through the EC. Although the affidavit that every candidate submits to the EC while submitting the nomination form has to include a description of the promises made to voters and the extent of their achievements if they have won the election in the past. But there is no system to monitor the implementation of the manifesto given by a political party. Thus, there should be mandatory provision to include along with the annual audit report of the political parties submitted to the EC regarding the extent to which the election manifesto was fulfilled, why the remainder was not attained, plans to recover the gap etc. and it should be made public. The political leaders should bear in mind that pre-election manifestos are not just the combination of few sentences articulated by them, but rather a publicly declared commitment of duties towards citizens and country. Accordingly, any breach of that will bring political consequences for them.

Published in The Business Standard as Thought on 19 January 2026.

Published in New Age as Op-ed on 22 January 2026 on page 8.

Published in Bonik Barta on 5 January 2026.

Published in the Weekly Shampratik Deshkal on 12 February 2026 issue (available online on 15 February 2026) on page 6.

Published on Deshkal News on 15 February 2026.

The Illusion of Control: The DNCC’s Misguided Rent Guideline

A few days ago, when the Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC) authorities announced that they would take practical steps to control house rent in the capital, it brought hopes of relief in the minds of countless tenants in Dhaka. Although some new legal questions and fears of further rent hike have arisen after announcing detailed guidelines by the DNCC Administrator Mohammad Azaz on 20 January. However, the DNCC has provided explanation that rent determination will be based on negotiation and existing laws within couple of days amid extensive criticism. Earlier, in the wake of a writ petition, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court issued a rule to prepare a policy for determining house rent by the Dhaka North and South City Corporation authorities and those concerned.

Nonetheless, the purpose of the DNCC’s house rent guidelines should have been to establish some balance and fairness in an uncontrolled market. Now that has created new complications in terms of legal validity and practical applicability. The biggest concern is the provision of maintaining the existing annual rent increase rate of not more than 15 percent of the market value of the property. It will ultimately act as a license to skyrocket the rent.

Most of the instructions given by the DNCC are against the interests of both the landlords and the tenants, are chaotic, unreasonable and illegal. Although the DNCC guidelines emphasize on discussions with tenants on various issues, it does not seem that the DNCC authorities themselves discussed and took opinions from all concerned before preparing the guidelines. Even if they did, it appears that they have issued an unplanned guideline of their own accord without including those recommendations.

For example, clause 4 asserts that the landlord will give the keys of the roof and the main gate to tenants subject to conditions. But there is no guidance on what the conditions may be or what the considerations will be in determining the conditions.

Further, clause 5 of the guideline states that the tenant will pay the rent to the landlord by the 10th of the month. However, according to the House Rent Control Act, 1991, in the absence of a contract, the rent is to be paid within the fifteenth day of the following month. As a result, the legal rights of the tenants have been violated here.

Again, clause 7 provides that the time for increasing the rent will be June-July. In reality no tenant will definitely wait for the months of June-July to rent a house. In that case, if someone rents at other times of the year, the landlord cannot increase the rent if the two-year period lapse not in June-July, which is not a logical rule at all and is against the interests of the landlord.

On the other hand, clause 9 of the guidelines stipulates that a tenant can be evicted if h/se fails to pay rent on time. But section 18 of the Act has added some more grounds and clarified in which circumstances the landlord can and cannot evict a tenant. As a result, there is a fear of loss of interest of both the landlord and the tenant in this regard.

Moreover, clause 13 has gone beyond the law and determined that the landlord can take one to three months’ rent in advance. Although the Rent Control Act made it maximum of one month. Therefore, it creates opportunity to ask for an additional advance from the tenants. On the other hand, clause 15 mentions that the regional executive officer should be informed if the landlord and tenant association cannot resolve the dispute. But there is no detail about within which time limit and in what manner the dispute will be resolved. Though the regional executive officer does not have the power to resolve such dispute as per law. The law shall prevail if there is conflict between the guidelines and the law. As a result, it is not at all clear whose interests this guideline will actually protect.

On the other hand, there is no mention of how the obligations imposed on the homeowner or tenant will be ensured or held accountable, or who will take care of them. Most importantly, what will be the consequences if someone does not comply with these? And does the DNCC have any legal power or practical ability to implement this directive?

In addition, other administrative structures required to implement the guidelines are inadequate; for example, ward-based owners and tenants’ associations and the arbitration system through them are not prevalent in our system. Therefore, the possibility of arbitration being effective without clear legal provisions is low. Overall, the directive is largely advisory; its legal basis and practical implementation framework are both extremely weak.

In reality, the House Rent Control Act, 1991 is ineffective in Bangladesh. Rules have not been formulated even today; the regulatory post has been vacant for decades. Interestingly, the provision of increasing the rent by up to 15 percent yearly (after the first two years) is within section 15 of the Act and the DNCC, as a local authority, does not have the power to amend it. The main problem with the House Rent Control Act, 1991 is that there is no clear and realistic method for determining the market price. Although both the law and guidelines mention about the standard rent determination; but the detailed method and considerations for such standard rent determination is not provided.

Adopting a rational approach to rent control (such as setting realistic maximum annual percentages based on area and amenities and revising them from time to time), ensuring monitoring and accountability, establishing strong, independent and accessible dispute resolution body (such as a House Rent Tribunal or Board), awarding costs to the winning party, etc., are urgent at this moment to uphold the interest of both the homeowners and tenants.

The government should therefore now introduce a fair rent determination system that takes into account the local market analysis, the quality of the building, the amenities provided, the area, the quality of the civic services, the liveability and the income capacity of the tenant, instead of the existing ‘15% of the market value’. Additionally, bringing the necessary amendments to the House Rent Control Act, 1991 immediately; formulating rules under the Act; creating the post of rent controllers in every city corporation and municipality and appoint the necessary number of officers; establishing ward based separate dedicated body to resolve housing rental disputes; strictly implement and monitor the provisions of the law etc., are obvious now.

Dhaka’s tenants, who are one of the backbones of the city’s economy; have long been victims of neglect, deprivation and exploitation. An effective and fair rent determination requires a realistic and strong legal framework; so that the rights of both parties are specific and a speedy redressal process is within everyone’s reach. The government and the local authorities must focus on establishing a quickly implementable, balanced and transparent legal framework, not an imaginary policy. Otherwise, this guideline will remain on paper as always, and homeowners and tenants will bear the consequences. Now is the time to ensure a modern, up-to-date and humane legal protection for the housing market of the country.

Published on Dhaka Opinion Magazine as Commentary on Law on 1 February 2026.

Published on Counter Point BD as Analysis on 3 February 2026.

Published in the Rupali Bangladesh as Sub-editorial on 30 January 2026 on page 4.

Published in Sangbad as Sub-editorial on 30 January 2026 on page 6.

Published in Bonik Barta as Sub-editorial on 31 January 2026 on page 8.

Published in Ajker Patrika as sub-editorial on 7 February 2026 on page 4.

Wife’s ‘Consent’ vs. Arbitration Council’s ‘Permission’: Crushing the Myths Regarding Polygamy for Muslim Men in Bangladesh

In mid-January 2026, a verdict of the High Court Division (HCD) regarding polygamy created a lot of interest on social media. The photo card of the HCD verdict, which states that the permission of the first wife will no longer be required for a subsequent marriage, has been shared on Facebook massively.

There are various misconceptions about law and court systems in our country, even among many highly educated and aware people. One reason for this may be the ambiguous words and language used in the legal text and its interpretation. The language of law is usually not clear. Moreover, superior courts interpret words used in the statute. Apart from resolving disputes, interpreting legislation is also one of the core functions of the court. Therefore, the meaning of a word that we usually know in society can be given a different meaning through the interpretation by the court.

There was never a provision in the law that the permission of the first wife is needed for a second marriage; therefore, the HCD did not say anything new. Then the question may arise as to how people came to know about this misconception for a long time. It may be due to ignorance or not being able to read the law properly, or practicing a common mistake in society for a long time without verifying it.

Family matters (such as marriage, divorce, distribution of property to heirs, maintenance, dower, gift/heba, guardianship, donation of property for religious purposes, etc.) in our country are generally regulated by the rules of respective religions.

In 1961, during the regime of military ruler Ayub Khan, significant reforms were made to Muslim family laws, and the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (MFLO) was promulgated, which is still in operation in this territory. Basically, section 6 of this MFLO deals with the provision of polygamy for Muslim men. Polygamy refers to a system of ‘marriage with more than one person at once’. The opposite of polygamy is monogamy, where each person has a maximum of one spouse at any one time.

Although section 494 of the Penal Code (PC), 1860 stipulates that if a person remarries while his or her husband or wife is alive, the subsequent marriage has been declared void and that person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description up to seven years and be liable to fine. This provision is not specific to any particular religion but is applicable to everyone and is equally applicable to both men and women. Muslim law permits polygamy for men, although there is no such permission for women.

The MFLO, 1961, is a special law, while the PC is a general law. Consequently, in accordance with the general principles of law and section 3 of the MFLO, the obligations of the MFLO shall prevail over any other laws and customs prevailing in the country. Therefore, if a Muslim man wants to have multiple marriages, he will have to follow the conditions set in section 6 of the MFLO; otherwise, he will be punished.

Nevertheless, to do polygamy under Muslim law, it is mandatory to treat the existing wife/wives fairly and equitably (which includes ensuring equal treatment in terms of time, gifts, and other material things) and to have the financial capacity to provide adequate maintenance to them. But the MFLO does not say anything about these obligations of the husband for polygamy.

The court determines the application for polygamy after giving an opportunity of hearing to the existing wife and verifies the health and financial-related certificates before deciding the application for polygamy in other Islamic countries. On the other hand, the arbitration council does not have the power to call or take witnesses under the MFLO. It is worth mentioning that in 1926, Turkey and in 1957 Tunisia banned polygamy for men despite being Muslim countries. Our HCD has also previously directed the government to amend the law on polygamy.

However, there are five sub-sections in section 6 of the MFLO, 1961. The first sub-section states that a man shall not remarry while a marriage is in existence, unless he has previously obtained ‘permission in writing’ from the Arbitration Council (AC). And if a man remarries without the prior written permission of the AC, that subsequent marriage shall not be registered under the Muslim Marriage and Divorce (Registration) Act, 1974.

That means a man who has been married once, and while that marriage is in existence, cannot remarry without obtaining prior written permission from the AC. The marriage shall subsist until it is dissolved or until the death of the husband/wife. The AC is defined in Section 2(a) of the MFLO as a council consisting of the chairman and one representative each nominated by both the husband and wife or wives. If anyone fails to nominate his/her representative within the prescribed time, the AC shall be constituted without such representative.

Here, chairman means the Chairman of the concerned Union Parishad or the Mayor of the Municipality or City Corporation or the person designated by the government to perform this duty in the cantonment area or if there is no elected representative, the person/administrator appointed by the government to perform this duty (for example, there is no elected representative now). However, if a non-Muslim person is the Chairman or Mayor of a Union Parishad, Municipality or City Corporation or if a Muslim Chairman or Mayor is unable to perform his duty for any reason or if he himself applies for polygamy, the concerned Union Parishad, Municipality or City Corporation shall elect a Muslim person from among the members or commissioners to perform this duty.

Now the question is, what will be the legal consequences of that marriage if one remarries without the prior written permission of the AC? The MFLO does not clarify this issue. Therefore, it can be said that although it is a punishable offense, the subsequent marriage will not become null and void automatically. In 1997, the HCD made the same observation in Jasmine Sultana vs. Mohammad Elias, 17 BLD (1997) 4. The same verdict also directed the legislature of Bangladesh to repeal the relevant law to abolish polygamy from society. Even though the Appellate Division vehemently admonished the court and flatly dismissed the observation made by the HCD in Mohammad Elias vs. Jasmine Sultana, 19 BLD (AD) (1999) 122.

The punishment for contravening the provision is imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year (not exactly one year, but any term within one year) or a fine not exceeding ten thousand taka (i.e., any amount between one taka and ten thousand) or with both. Along with this, the punishment for not registering a marriage under section 5(4) of the Muslim Marriages and Divorces (Registration) Act, 1974 is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding three thousand taka or with both.

Section 6(2) provides the procedure for applying to the chairman. An application must be made to the chairman following the prescribed manner and by paying the prescribed fee (25 taka) and stating the ground(s) or reason(s) for the proposed marriage (e.g., sterility, physical infirmity, physical unfitness for the conjugal relation, wilful avoidance of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, or insanity on the part of an existing wife (Rule 14 of the Muslim Family Laws Rules)) along with mentioning whether the existing wife/wives (the law does not mention the permission of the first wife, it says the existing wife or wives) have ‘consent’ (not permission) (if there are more than one wife, then all of them) in order to remarry.

Hence, according to the law, only whether the consent of the existing wife or wives has been taken has to be mentioned in the application. There is no obligation to take the permission of the existing wife or wives. The AC, if satisfied that the intended marriage is ‘necessary’ and ‘just’, may grant permission subject to fulfilment of condition(s) set by it and record in writing the reasons for such permission. However, the MFLO does not include the obligation to submit a medical or any other financial certificate in support of the application.

Therefore, it can be said that since 1961, there has never been a requirement for the wife’s permission for polygamy. Interestingly, if the consent of the wife/wives is not obtained, then there is no provision for whether the application will be rejected or there will be any other consequences for that. The punishment will only be imposed if the person remarries without the prior written permission of the AC. However, in Abul Basher v Nurun Nabi, 39 DLR (1987) 333, the court observed that the aim of section 6 was to restrain the practice of polygamy and to permit it in reasonable scenarios. Hence, the consent of the existing wife/wives is not a sine qua non for remarriage.

If the husband or wife/wives are aggrieved by the decision of the AC, they can file an application in the prescribed manner, within the prescribed time, and by paying the prescribed fee for revision to the concerned Civil Judge, while the decision of the Civil Judge will be final (s. 6(4)). However, a writ petition can be filed against this judgment before the HCD.

Now the question is, what is the remedy for the existing wives/wives if a man marries polygamously without the prior written permission of the AC? In that case, the existing wife/wives will have the right to get their outstanding dower immediately in full (regardless of the mode of payment). Moreover, if there is no delegation of power to dissolve the marriage in the Nikahnama, the wife can proceed for dissolution of the marriage through court under section 2(iia) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, by showing the ground of such polygamy without taking permission from the AC.

An important question in this regard is whether the groom is obliged to inform the bride that he is already married and has an existing wife at the time of the subsequent marriage? There is no legal provision for that earlier disclosure. Although clause 5 of the Nikahnama asks whether the bride is a maiden, widow, or divorced woman? But there is no such clause for men, which is discriminatory. Nonetheless, section 495 of the PC prescribes that if anyone conceals the fact of an existing marriage while committing an offence under section 494, he will be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

So, public legal literacy campaigns are essential to eliminate misconceptions about law and legal processes. The government should take meaningful initiative to ease existing barriers to access to legal information, whereas NGOs, different civil society platforms, human rights organisations, legal academics, and law students can engage in the dissemination of accurate legal information to sensitise citizens about their legally protected rights. Such endeavours will empower individuals with appropriate legal knowledge.

Published in the Bonik Barta as Sub-editorial on 14 January 2026.

Published in the Weekly Shampratik Deshkal and Deshkal News on 15 January 2026 on page 7.

Published on the Counterpoint BD as Analysis on 20 January 2026.