In the month of July 2024, the Quota Reform Movement in Bangladesh emerged as a powerful symbol for the fight for fundamental human rights, revealing the severe injustices inflicted by the government and law enforcement agencies. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh through landmark cases1 has recognized the fundamental right to protest against government policies.2 DHLR stands in unwavering solidarity with the students and deeply mourns the martyrs who sacrificed their lives for this crucial cause. The persistent violation of constitutional rights—right to life, liberty, freedom of speech, and assembly—demands immediate and urgent attention. This article aims to shed light on these outrageous violations, calling for accountability, justice, and the restoration of these fundamental rights.
From Peaceful Protests to Brutal Crackdowns: The Role of Bangladesh Police
During the ongoing protests, numerous videos and pictures circulated online showing Bangladesh Police using excessive force to disperse students. These videos, verified by international media,3 have drawn widespread criticism all over the world.
The Officer in Charge of Police has the power to use force, arrest or confine the participants to disperse any unlawful assembly.4 An unlawful assembly is a group of five or more people with goals of intimidating public authorities, resisting law enforcement, committing crimes, violating rights etc.5 The peaceful quota protests by the students do not fall under any of these grounds.
The Police Regulations of Bengal (PRB) provide strict guidelines for the use of armed parties and firearms to control assemblies. Firing upon a crowd should be a last resort, only when it is absolutely necessary for the defence of life or property.6 Four conditions must be met before firing: giving clear warning; controlled fire aimed at a specific target; inflicting minimal necessary harm; and stopping as soon as the objective is achieved.7 The commanding police officer must strictly avoid indiscriminate attacks that could harm innocent bystanders and order a cease-fire as soon as the mob shows any sign of dispersing.8
The excessive use of force by Bangladesh Police have resulted in the loss of numerous civilian lives and injured many more.9 Under the international law,10 the fundamental right to life and liberty of all citizens are protected and lethal force by police should only be used when it is strictly necessary to protect against imminent threats of death or serious injury, and when all other de-escalation options have failed. However, during the protests, it was apparent that the Police opened fire on unarmed students, kept shooting even when there was no threat and took lives in an inhumane manner.11 The Bangladesh Police Force must be held accountable for their acts of brutality, excessive use of force, and violations of both national and international laws.
From Voices to Silence: The Impact of Internet Blackouts on Democracy of Bangladesh
The legality of internet blackouts in Bangladesh raises significant concerns about the violation of fundamental rights under Article 39(2) of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which protects freedom of expression and access to information.12 The Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulation Act 2001, does not explicitly authorise the telecom regulator or government agencies to issue shutdown orders, making such actions unlawful and lacking proper judicial oversight or clear, reasoned explanations.
Bangladesh is a state party to ICCPR which obliges the country to protect freedom of expression and political engagement as emphasised in UN Human Rights Council Resolution 47/16.13
The recent 150-hour internet blackout from July 18 to July 25, highlighted the severe implications of such measures on democracy and human rights. It obstructed emergency services, media documentation and public communication, drawing criticisms from international observers. The economic impact was significant, with NetBlocks estimating a loss of over USD 500 million.14
While the Constitution permits certain restrictions on freedom of speech for reasons of state security and public order, such measures must be clearly defined by law. Total internet shutdowns are excessively broad measures that lack the necessary specificity and proportionality required by both national and international legal standards and strike at the heart of fundamental rights. It invokes an urgent need to safeguard these freedoms in our increasingly digital world. The indiscriminate cutting off of internet access silences voices, disrupts lives, and threatens the very essence of democracy. Now, more than ever, we must stand firm in protecting our digital rights and ensuring that the tools meant to connect us are not used to control us.
Unlawful Searches Amid Crisis: The Dark Side of Bangladesh’s Internet Blackout
The government imposed a nationwide curfew on 19 July, 2024 and deployed the military with a “shoot at sight” order when the clash in the ongoing Quota Reform Protests led to several students’ deaths and hundreds of injuries.15 During the curfew, police and other law enforcement agencies began targeting Quota Reform supporters, primarily students, conducting midnight raids and searches that caused widespread panic among citizens.16
Article 43 of the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy and security in home and correspondence, subject to reasonable restrictions. This can be extended to include freedom of thought, speech, and personal liberty under Articles 32 and 39.17 ICCPR also protects individuals from arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home, or correspondence.18 However, these rights were grossly violated as police conducted indiscriminate searches, forcing students to reveal private phone content. They also conducted searches on women without female officers, clearly violating the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC).19
Searches of places generally require a warrant issued by a competent court.20 However, warrantless searches are allowed in urgent cases,21 provided proper documentation and witness procedures are followed.22 The Cyber Security Act 2023 permits police officers to enter, search, seize relevant materials, search individuals, and arrest suspects without a warrant, as long as they document their reasons and report to the Tribunal.23
Despite PRB outlining rules for searching homes and persons,24 several newspaper reports indicate frequent police violations, including warrantless searches and the use of arbitrary force during illegal arrests.
The actions of the police during this blackout were not only unconstitutional but also violated international standards and disregarded Bangladesh’s privacy laws. The unlawful searches and terror inflicted on residents constitute a severe violation of trust and human rights. Immediate accountability and restoration of the rule of law are crucial.
Warrantless Arrest: Legal Boundaries and Rights of Defense
Around 11000 people were arrested in the country in connection with the Quota Reform protest.25 It can be argued that this large number of arrests was essentially a political tool for oppression to suppress dissent.26
Police can arrest a person without a warrant under 9 grounds according to section 54 of the CrPC. In a number of notable Supreme Court cases,27 the Court criticised section 54 for being too vague and directed the government to amend the provision. Although the amendments were never brought, the guidelines given by the Court are the law of the state.28
Key guidelines from these cases include notifying a family member or friend within 12 hours of arrest, registering a case, law enforcement personnel disclosing their identity and showing it on demand, and allowing the arrestee to consult a lawyer. Additionally, warrantless arrests require reasonable suspicion or credible information, preventing arbitrary detention.29 Arbitrary arrest clearly constitutes an offence under the Penal Code.30
The Constitution prescribes that every arrested person has to be informed of the reason for his arrest as soon as possible and he should be given the right to consult legal counsel.31 Remedy for violation of this fundamental right lies in the form of a writ petition and constitutional tort.
It must be remembered that the use of force by police to effect arrest cannot be beyond necessity.32 If disproportionate force is used, the arrestee will have the right of private defence.33 Furthermore, escaping from or resisting unlawful arrest is not a penal offence.34
From Classroom to Jail: How Bangladesh failed to protect its children
The arbitrary methods of arrest by the government did not even spare children. A notable picture went viral where a child aged 17 years was being presented at Court in handcuffs and roped at the waist.35 Many more cases like this happened throughout the country but did not garner enough media attention as confirmed by UNICEF.36
The children of Bangladesh are regulated by the Children Act, 2013 which prevails of all other general laws.37 All persons up to the age of eighteen years old are children in Bangladesh38 and the Children’s Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to try their cases.39 The confidentiality of the child in connection with a case including their pictures or descriptions may only be published with the permission of the Court.40 No child shall be handcuffed or tied with a rope or cord around the waist and the child has a right to get bail whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable.41 Lastly, there are no provisions in this law to send a child on remand. The indiscriminate arrests and orders of remand of children and expecting some detainees to attend their HSC exams from jail42 were all in clear violation of the law.
In Bangladesh, where the Children Act, 2013 mandates the utmost respect and protection for children, the current crisis reveals a grave betrayal of this commitment. Bangladesh has also violated its obligations as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Despite the establishment of dedicated officials such as Probation Officers, Child Affairs Police Officers, and Child Welfare Boards, the systemic failure to uphold these safeguards demands immediate accountability and severe penalties for all responsible. Proper investigation and enquiry should be made as to why such grave injustice was even allowed to happen.
Arbitrary Detention: Legality of Police Overreach to Suppress Protesters
“The mass arrest and arbitrary detention of student protesters is a witch hunt… to further perpetuate a climate of fear,” said Smriti Singh, Regional Director for South Asia at Amnesty International.
Firstly, law enforcement personnel are not allowed to commit any physical or mental torture on the detainees.43 Not to mention, torture is also prohibited under Article 35 of the Constitution and the Torture Convention.44
Secondly, any person who is arrested under section 54 has to be presented before a magistrate as soon as possible but not later than 24 hours.45 The police shall also explain to the magistrate why the investigation could not be completed within 24 hours and why he thinks the accusation or the information against the accused is well-founded.46 The magistrate may authorise the detention of such accused if deemed fit for a period not exceeding 15 days and the reasons for such decision shall be recorded.47
However, section 167 of the CrPC has been the subject of much criticism in our legal arena, even by the Supreme Court.48 The judicial guidelines state that if copies of the diary are not produced as per section 167(2), the detainee shall be released; the magistrate shall only order for further detention if he is satisfied that the accusation or information is well-founded and there are materials in the case diary, etc.49 If it appears to the Magistrate that the police have illegally confined the accused, it shall constitute an offence. Penal Code, 1860, s 220. If the detainee dies while remaining in custody, the magistrate shall take cognizance of such offence.50
Other than criminal charges, constitutional tort remedy as part of a writ petition is also available for the victims for violating fundamental rights under Articles 31, 32 and 35(5) of the Constitution.51 Such actions are also violations of our international obligations under Article 7 of ICCPR.
The Quota Reform protests highlight a broader crisis of governance and accountability. Authorities’ increasing violations of constitutional and international human rights standards, coupled with intense repression and media censorship, have only fueled widespread public support for the protesters, reflecting growing dissatisfaction with the government. With the Prime Minister resigning and fleeing from Bangladesh, the ongoing struggle for equity and justice is now a focal point, with both national and international observers closely watching this quest for the restoration of the rule of law.
- State v Chief Editor Manabjamin (2005) 57 DLR (HCD) 359; Abul Kalam Azad v David Bergman 5 CLR (2017) (HCD).
↩︎ - ‘#KeepItOn: Bangladesh’s government must restore internet access, ensure connectivity during student protests – Access Now’ (Access Now, 19 July 2024) <www.accessnow.org/press-release/keepiton-restore-internet-during-student-protests-bangladesh/> accessed 7 August 2024.
↩︎ - Anbarasan Ethirajan and Shruti Menon, ‘Videos reveal brutality that left scores dead in Bangladesh protests’ (BBC News, 30 July 2024) <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c720lzejzwpo> accessed 7 August 2024.
↩︎ - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s 127, 128.
↩︎ - Penal Code, 1860, s 141.
↩︎ - Police Regulations Bengal, 1943, reg 153(c).
↩︎ - ibid, reg 154.
↩︎ - ibid, reg 155.
↩︎ - ‘Bangladesh: Witness testimony, video and photographic analysis confirm police used unlawful force against protesters’ (Amnesty International,17 July 2024) <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/07/bangladesh-witness-testimony-video-and-photographic-analysis-confirm-police-used-unlawful-force-against-protesters/> accessed 5 August 2024; Faisal Mahmud and Shaquib Ahmed, ‘Shot in the eyes, victims of Bangladesh protest violence face dark future’ (AL JAZEERA, 29 July 2024) <https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/7/29/shot-in-the-eyes-victims-of-bangladesh-protest-violence-face-dark-future> accessed 5 August 2024.
↩︎ - Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966); Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (adopted 07 September 1990) art 4.
↩︎ - Mahfuz Anam, ‘Why was Abu Sayed shot dead in cold blood?’ The Daily Star (Dhaka, 18 July, 2024)
↩︎ - Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh art 39(2)
↩︎ - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights arts 19, 21, 22, 25
↩︎ - Mahiya Tabassum, ‘The prolonged internet shutdown sets a dangerous precedent’ The Daily Star (Dhaka, 28 July 2024) <https://images.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/news/the-prolonged-internet-shutdown-sets-dangerous-precedent-3663891> accessed 30 July, 2024
↩︎ - ‘Timeline of student protests’ The Daily Star (Dhaka, 4 August 2024) <https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/news/timeline-student-protests-3668996> accessed 4 August 2024
↩︎ - Shaikh Azizur Rahman, ‘Bangladesh faces growing criticism for violent crackdown on students’ Voice of America (Dhaka, 31 July 2024) <https://www.voanews.com/a/bangladesh-faces-growing-criticism-for-violent-crackdown-on-students-/7723896.html> accessed 31 July 2024
↩︎ - Kharak Singh v State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1295
↩︎ - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art 17(1).
↩︎ - Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, s 52
↩︎ - Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, s 96,98
↩︎ - Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, s 165,166
↩︎ - Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, s 102,103
↩︎ - The Cyber Security Act 2023, s 42.
↩︎ - Police Regulations Bengal, 1943, reg 280.
↩︎ - Staff Correspondent, ‘At least 253 students arrested in 18 districts in 12 days’ (Prothom Alo, 29 July 2024) <https://en.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/llxkiaxdjo> accessed 04 August, 2024.
↩︎ - Staff Reporter, ‘Bangladesh: End punitive mass arrests and arbitrary detention of student leaders and protesters’ (Amnesty International, 29 July, 2024) <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/07/bangladesh-end-punitive-mass-arrests-and-arbitrary-detention-of-student-leaders-and-protesters/> accessed 04 August 2024.
↩︎ - BLAST and ors v Bangladesh and ors (2003) 55 DLR (HCD) 363; Saifuzzaman v State (2004) 56 DLR (HCD) 324; Bangladesh v BLAST (2016) 8 SCOB AD 1.
↩︎ - Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, arts 111, 112.
↩︎ - Bangladesh v BLAST (2016) 8 SCOB AD 1, para 185; Police Regulations Bengal, 1943, reg 317.
↩︎ - Penal Code, 1860, s 220.
↩︎ - Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, art 33.
↩︎ - Dakhi Singh v The State (1955) AIR ALL 379.
↩︎ - ibid. ↩︎
- Badiur Rahman v State, (1977) 29 DLR 270.
↩︎ - Nazmus Sakib Sadi, ‘17-year-old placed on 7-day remand in police killing case’ The Business Standard (Dhaka, 27 July 2024).
↩︎ - ‘UNICEF reports 32 children killed, many injured and detained in Bangladesh protests’ (UN News, 2 August 2024) <https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152796 > accessed 6 August 2024.
↩︎ - The Children Act, 2013, s 3.
↩︎ - ibid, s 4.
↩︎ - ibid, s 17.
↩︎ - ibid, s 28.
↩︎ - ibid, s 44(3), s 52(2).
↩︎ - ‘2 arrested students allowed to sit for HSC exams from prison’ Dhaka Tribune (Dhaka, 2 August 2024).
↩︎ - Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention) Act, 2013, s 15.
↩︎ - Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 10 December 1984).
↩︎ - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s 61.
↩︎ - BLAST (n 4).
↩︎ - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, s 61.
↩︎ - BLAST and ors v Bangladesh and ors (2003) 55 DLR (HCD) 363; Saifuzzaman v State (2004) 56 DLR (HCD) 324; Bangladesh v BLAST (2016) 8 SCOB AD 1.
↩︎ - BLAST (n 4).
↩︎ - Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention) Act, 2013 , s 15. ↩︎
- Bilkis Akter Hossain v Government of Bangladesh (1997) 17 BLD (HCD) 344.
↩︎
