Commentary : HC verdict on Grameen Kalyan’s Tk 666 cr tax forbidden proved that Dr Yunus abused his power
By Hemayet Hossain
The High Court Division recently directed Grameen Kalyan, a non-profit organization founded by Nobel Laureate and former Chief Adviser of the interim government Dr. Muhammad Yunus, to pay Tk 666 crore in back taxes demanded by the National Board of Revenue (NBR).
Resolving a legal contest pending since 2017, a High Court bench comprising Justice Md. Mojibur Rahman Miah and Justice Rezaul Karim held that the organization must clear the dues in equal installments over the next three fiscal years. The ruling has naturally rekindled debates across political and administrative circles.
The key question emerging from the fallout is whether Dr. Yunus attempted to wield his authority to sway the case while serving as Chief Adviser, or if the affair was fundamentally a long-standing dispute over statutory interpretation and tax policy.
A significant strain of public and political commentary quickly framed the earlier reports which suggested tax waivers or case withdrawals during Dr. Yunus's tenure at the helm of the interim government as an explicit abuse of executive power.
Critics argued that utilizing the highest state office to benefit an entity with which he was historically aligned signaled an ethical breach, drawing sharp criticism regarding governance and conflict of interest.
However, legal counsel for Grameen Kalyan clarified last July that reports claiming a total tax waiver or withdrawal of the case were unfounded and misleading. Grameen Kalyan’s primary legal defense was never aimed at evading taxes, but rather at challenging double taxation. According to the organization, a 15 percent tax had already been deducted at source when receiving dividends from Grameenphone.
They petitioned the High Court Division in 2017 precisely to contest what they argued was an additional, legally unfounded tax burden.
Importantly, upon assuming the responsibility of leading the interim government, Dr. Yunus formally resigned from his position as Chairman of Grameen Kalyan.
Moreover , a closer examination of the case's procedural timeline reveals that after a High Court bench initially dismissed the writ petition in 2024, that judgment was recalled due to a potential conflict of interest involving a junior judge’s prior involvement in the matter. In accordance with judicial protocol, the case was subsequently reassigned to a fresh bench.
Had the executive branch under the Chief Adviser directly intervened in the administration of justice, it is improbable that a newly constituted High Court bench would uphold the NBR’s substantial revenue demand of Tk 666 crore. The verdict itself serves as clear evidence that the court reached its determination independently, grounded in statutory arguments and established legal facts.
By upholding the NBR's claim, the High Court’s final ruling establishes that Grameen Kalyan’s original legal standing on the tax exemption was ultimately unsustainable under current law. In this constitutional process, the regulatory authority's position prevailed.
Yet, labeling the situation outright as an "abuse of power" or a "direct manipulation of the judiciary" overlooks the underlying legal chronology. While public misgivings are understandable when sensitive litigation involves entities tied to a sitting Chief Adviser—making transparent communication a moral duty—the High Court’s ruling confirms that the bench did not succumb to individual or political pressure.
With Grameen Kalyan considering an appeal before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, the legal process remains ongoing. Once fully resolved, this case will stand as a significant precedent for how legal disputes involving entities affiliated with high-ranking public officials are navigated under the rule of law.
Observers and public in general
believed that it was a misuse or influence of Dr Muhammad Yunus on the judiciary during his tenure to forbid the huge amount of taxes in favour of his institution which amounted as 'conflict of interest '. It was also massively criticised in the social media.
believed that it was a misuse or influence of Dr Muhammad Yunus on the judiciary during his tenure to forbid the huge amount of taxes in favour of his institution which amounted as 'conflict of interest '. It was also massively criticised in the social media.
