A writ petition has been filed with the High Court challenging the validity of the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, under which trials for crimes against humanity are conducted.
The petition was filed by Supreme Court lawyer Mohammad Mohsin Rashid on Wednesday.
The respondents include the law secretary and other relevant authorities.
The issue of challenging the law has arisen before. On November 19, 2025, then chief prosecutor of the International Crimes Tribunal Mohammad Tajul Islam said there was no scope to challenge either the amended International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973, or the tribunal’s jurisdiction, as the law enjoys constitutional protection.
“The petition challenging the law has already been dismissed. Therefore, proceedings under the Act will continue in accordance with the law,” he had said.
Tajul also argued that the Act is protected by the Constitution and that no constitutional court can question its validity. He added that individuals being tried under the law cannot seek remedies in the High Court Division on the grounds of fundamental rights.
The matter was also raised in proceedings involving former National Telecommunication Monitoring Centre (NTMC) director general Maj Gen (retd) Ziaul Ahsan, who is facing a case before the International Crimes Tribunal.
On his behalf, senior lawyer MI Farooqui and advocate Nazneen Nahar challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction. However, International Crimes Tribunal-1 rejected the plea on January 22, 2025, upholding its authority to try crimes against humanity allegedly committed during the mass uprising.
Earlier, on May 13, 2012, the High Court issued a split verdict on a writ petition challenging an amendment to the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act. The petition had been filed by Chittagong-based lawyer Morshedur Rahman Chowdhury in the public interest.
At the time, then attorney general Mahbubey Alam said the challenge concerned Section 3(2) of the Act. While the law was originally enacted to prosecute members of armed and auxiliary forces, an amendment in 2009 expanded its scope to include individuals and groups of individuals.
The High Court had previously disposed of four other cases relating to the Act.
