Play store
The High Court has issued a rule asking why preventing three female friends from travelling to Nepal despite having valid passports and all required travel documents should not be declared illegal.
The court also directed the Additional Inspector General of Police (Immigration) to investigate a complaint filed over the incident, dispose of it within seven days and submit a report to the court.
A High Court bench comprising Justice KM Kamrul Kader and Justice Fatema Anwar issued the rule on Tuesday.
The Home Secretary, Inspector General of Police, Additional IGP of Immigration Police, director of immigration, officer-in-charge of Shahjalal International Airport Immigration Police and the immigration officials on duty were made respondents. They have been asked to respond to the rule within four weeks.
Lawyer Ishrat Hasan, who represented the petitioners, told bdnews24.com that Rifa Tamanna, Sohani Islam Samapti and Naznin are friends. All three are adults and have no criminal cases or court restrictions against them.
According to the lawyer, the three women went to the airport on August 8 to travel to Nepal but were stopped by immigration officials.
“They were subjected to unnecessary questions, including why they were unmarried and whether they had permission from their families to travel abroad,” Ishrat said. They were subsequently not allowed to pass through immigration and were given no reason for being stopped, she alleged.
The lawyer said the women suffered financial losses involving airline tickets, bookings and other arrangements because they were prevented from travelling.
A formal complaint seeking an investigation, preservation of CCTV footage, action against those responsible and compensation was submitted to the Additional IGP of Immigration Police on August 31, she said.
After receiving no response, a legal notice was sent to the respondents on September 6. When there was still no response, the women filed the writ petition with the High Court on September 15.
The petition argued that the incident violated citizens’ fundamental rights to freedom of movement and equality guaranteed by the Constitution.
It also sought directions to prevent women from being unnecessarily harassed at immigration in future over their marital status or whether they had permission from their parents, as well as compensation for the financial losses suffered by the petitioners.
