New York court temporarily blocks Bangladesh Society’s October 25 election

Noman Sabit: Queens County Supreme Court has temporarily barred Bangladesh Society Inc. from holding its October 25 election, opening polling stations, taking votes, counting ballots or certifying results. Justice Chereé A. Buggs, acting as emergency justice, signed the October 23 order on an application by Osman A. Chowdhury in a dispute over the rejection of his membership application and his bid to run for president.

The case bears Index No. 732174/2026. The order, filed as NYSCEF Document No. 25, provides that the temporary restraints remain in effect pending the hearing and determination of the application for a preliminary injunction. A hearing is scheduled for November 5 at 10 a.m. in Part 23, Room 140, at 25-10 Court Square in Long Island City.

The respondents are Bangladesh Society Inc.; President S. M. A. Rahman, also known as “Salim”; General Secretary Mohammad Ali; Treasurer Mafijul Islam Bhuiyan; and Chief Election Commissioner Abu Nasher. The restraints also cover their officers, election commissioners, trustees, agents and others acting in concert or participation with them.

In addition to restraining the election, the court temporarily barred enforcement of the Executive Committee’s August 28, 2026 letter rejecting Chowdhury’s membership application. It also directed the preservation of original voter registries, membership applications, dues-payment records, voter lists and election ballots until further court order.

In the petition and complaint submitted through attorney Tamara Harris, Chowdhury says he applied for general membership with a $20 fee because he wished to run for president in the 2026 election. According to his pleading, an August 28 letter from General Secretary Mohammad Ali acknowledged receipt of the application and payment under Combined Receipt No. 261607, but reported a unanimous decision to reject the application, citing pending litigation involving the Society and Article IX, Section 6 of its Constitution and Bylaws.

Chowdhury alleges that the rejection was retaliation for his earlier legal challenges to alleged irregularities. He also contends that the letter’s statement that the rejection was not a permanent bar was a means of excluding him from this election cycle. These are the petitioner’s allegations; the temporary order does not finally establish that retaliation occurred.

The petition describes Chowdhury as a former elected Society officer. He says he served as organizing secretary for the 2009–2010 term and assistant general secretary for the term beginning in 2014, and was recognized as a member in good standing in 2018, 2019 and 2020.

As background, he alleges excessive nomination fees, enrollment without properly completed membership applications and payment of other people’s dues with officers’ funds in connection with the 2018 election. The pleading also alleges that 27,000 “phantom members” were added in a single night. It lists nomination fees of $5,500 for president, $4,500 for senior vice president and $4,000 for vice president, which Chowdhury argues restricted ordinary members’ access to candidacy. The current temporary order does not determine whether those historical allegations are true.

Regarding internal remedies, Chowdhury says he submitted a written grievance to the Executive Committee before going to court in 2018, but received no investigation, response or determination. He subsequently brought the earlier action under Index No. 7850/2018. The current petition further states that his attorney demanded reinstatement on September 2, 2026, and arranged delivery of related notices in early September after the latest membership rejection. He alleges that the decision remained unchanged.

The current case combines a request for review under CPLR Article 78 with claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Chowdhury seeks annulment of the membership rejection, a declaration that Article IX, Section 6 is unenforceable, admission or reinstatement as a member in good standing, and certification of his eligibility to run for president. He argues that the disputed provision improperly restricts access to judicial relief.

The court has not, through this order, declared Chowdhury a presidential candidate, invalidated the disputed bylaw or issued a final ruling on all allegations. It has directed the respondents to show cause and imposed specified temporary restraints pending determination of the preliminary-injunction application.

The order directs service of the order and supporting papers on the respondents by October 26, personally or by certified mail. The allegations reported here are attributed to the petition; the order and petition text reviewed do not include the respondents’ detailed response.

*Copyright 2026 Bangla Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

BP/SM