In June 2024, students in Bangladesh protested against the reinstatement of the quota system by the High Court division that reserved, among others, 30% of the total public posts for the relatives of the 1971 liberation war heroes. However, after the protest turned violent, the government responded with strict measures including a nationwide curfew, the blocking of internet access, and a ‘shoot on sight’ order for the police. In this context, this post revisits Bangladesh’s human rights obligation to protect the right to protest as an essential aspect of the right to peaceful assembly, and charts a path forward on how the country could better protect this right in the future.
According to media reports, the death toll rose to more than a hundred, while thousands have been detained. Although the Supreme Court of Bangladesh later overturned the High Court’s decision and ordered the government to limit the quota to 7%, students’ demands for justice and accountability for those who have been killed, injured, arrested and detained during the protest persisted. While two Supreme Court lawyers filed a petition in the High Court demanding that law enforcement agencies stop shooting at the protesters, the Court dismissed the writ, maintaining that law enforcement agencies can use force when necessary. The use of violence against the protesters, however, eventually led to demands for the prime minister’s resignation, which occurred on August 5.
Bangladesh has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). According to Article 21 of the ICCPR, the right to peaceful assembly must be recognised by states; additionally, the right should not be subject to restriction unless falling within one of the enumerated grounds: national security, public health, order or morals. The Constitution of Bangladesh recognises the right to peaceful assembly under Article 37 in a very similar fashion to the ICCPR, but permits its restriction only on the grounds of the maintenance of public order and public health. What measures are, however, justified to maintain public order is difficult to determine.
The Human Rights Committee in its General comment No. 37 defines public order as ‘the sum of the rules that ensure the proper functioning of society, or the set of fundamental principles on which society is founded, which also entails respect for human rights, including the right of peaceful assembly’ [44]. It also explains that ‘mere pushing and shoving or disruption of vehicular or pedestrian movement or daily activities do not amount to violence’ [15] so as to allow states to curtail the right to protest on the ground of ‘public order’. In fact, peaceful assemblies, by their very nature, can cause disruption and states need to exercise a high level of toleration in this respect [47].
In a similar manner, the High Court of Bangladesh in the Khondaker Modarresh Elahi case [54 DLR (2002) 47] decided that the mere disruption to the public order is not a sufficient ground to restrict the enjoyment of the right to peaceful assembly unless the protesters’ actions are threatening. However, the use of violence by some participants itself should not lead to the blanket prohibition on otherwise peaceful assemblies [38]. States should take actions based on individual assessments only against the participants of the protest who cause the violence instead of the assembly in general [38].
The same usually applies when a third party gets involved in a peaceful protest to incite violence. In the context of the recent protest, the Government of Bangladesh has claimed that ‘miscreants’ were involved in the protest and used students as a shield to cause violence and the destruction of public properties. In this respect, the Human Rights Committee in Alekseev v Russian Federation observes that violence from third party interference alone is not sufficient to dismantle the demonstration; rather, states have an obligation to protect the participants from such violence.
In de-escalating a violent protest, measures adopted by states however need to comply with the basic principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, precaution and non-discrimination and the use of force should not be the first resort when the protest becomes violent. In fact, the law enforcement agencies are obliged to respect the fundamental human rights of the participants, to use non-violent means to tackle violence, and to provide warning when there is an absolute need to use force. It is relevant to mention here that Amnesty International has verified the use of unlawful force by the police against student-protesters during the quota-reformation movement in Bangladesh. This raises serious questions about the extent to which the measures taken by Bangladesh are justified to deal with the protest.
At the same time, the government also shut down internet communication, contrary to the criteria set by the UN Human Rights Committee which, in its General comment No. 37, said that it is imperative for the states not to restrict other means that facilitate peaceful assembly through the sharing of information and communication, such as the Internet [34].
The significance of protecting the right to protest lies not only in the fact that it is a ‘standalone right’ but also that it enables the enjoyment of other human rights such as freedom of expression. Along with the ratification of ICCPR, Bangladesh has constitutionally recognised the right to peaceful assembly which, in turn, imposes obligations on the country to ensure the enjoyment of the right.
Read more:
0 Comments