25/05/2026
Fundamental rights are often written into constitutions in grand and solemn terms, yet the real constitutional question begins when the State seeks to restrict them.
In this piece, Zaid Ekram argues for the textual incorporation of clear constitutional tests for restrictions on fundamental rights, particularly in jurisdictions marked by democratic fragility, executive overreach and weak rights-based governance. The article examines how vague limitation clauses such as “reasonable restrictions,” “public order” and “public interest” can enable State action unless accompanied by strict tests of legality, necessity, legitimate aim, rational connection, proportionality and least restrictive means.
Drawing on comparative constitutional jurisprudence from Bangladesh, India, Canada, South Africa, Germany and Australia, the piece situates Bangladesh’s constitutional reform moment within a broader global tradition of rights-limitation analysis. It also examines the Constitution Reform Commission’s proposal to incorporate express restriction tests, and argues that such textualisation would create an ex ante discipline on legislative and executive action while strengthening the ability of citizens to challenge rights violations.
Read the full article published by Dhaka Law Review and join the dialogue.
Thoughtful engagement and academic reflections are warmly welcome.
https://www.dhakalawreview.org/blog/2026/05/the-case-for-constitutional-tests-on-fundamental-rights-restrictions-6760
