The uprising that took place in July and August 2024 was initially focused on reforming the unfair quota system in public employment. However, it later evolved into a widespread movement against discrimination in the nation. The movement for equality and non-discrimination, spearheaded by students and supported by people from all sectors of society, was met with violent suppression by the authorities of the government at that time. This brutal crackdown resulted in severe human rights violations, including crimes against humanity and mass killings. According to a UN report, the excessive use of lethal force by law enforcement and shoot-on-sight orders led to the deaths of approximately 1,400 individuals, including children, and left thousands injured.
Throughout the uprising, numerous student protesters were detained and subjected to torture arbitrarily and unlawfully, infringing upon their rights to liberty and due process as guaranteed by the constitution and international human rights laws. In addition to the mass killings and unjust detentions, the imposition of internet shutdowns violated civil and political rights, such as freedom of expression, access to information, and peaceful assembly. In all instances of human rights abuses, the law was either misused under the guise of “national security,” “self-defense,” and “public interest,” or it was complicit in enabling state mechanisms to oppress, harass, and harm individuals.
The events in July also highlighted how the law was manipulated to commit human rights violations. The previous government enacted repressive laws that sustained its rule at the expense of recurring human rights violations. The Digital Security Act (DSA), derived from a previous oppressive provision of the ICT Act’s Section 57, fostered digital authoritarianism in Bangladesh, resulting in numerous arrests of activists, journalists, human rights defenders, students, and ordinary citizens. A study by the Centre for Governance Studies (CGS) revealed that under the DSA, 7,001 cases were filed against 21,867 individuals between October 8, 2018, and January 31, 2023. The design of this repressive law made it unnecessary to misuse it—the mere application of the law led to harassment, intimidation, and the silencing of dissent.
The broad and ambiguous provisions in digital laws granted unchecked authority to law enforcement agencies, enabling them to detain individuals based on mere suspicion without a warrant. This provision was widely utilized during the uprising. State agencies with extensive powers were frequently used to censor digital content and data, disregarding due process in line with human rights standards.
The digital laws aimed to instill a climate of fear, intimidation, and self-censorship. Instead of safeguarding digital rights, these laws prioritized political interests in their drafting and enforcement. While human rights in the digital realm are evolving, repressive digital laws have bolstered authoritarianism by criminalizing free speech, increasing surveillance, and stifling dissent.
Defamation laws were also weaponized during the previous regime to stifle freedom of expression and criminalize criticism. Colonial penal laws, the Contempt of Courts Act, and the DSA were extensively used to criminalize defamation. It was common for multiple cases to be filed for a single alleged defamation against media outlets, journalists, editors, and activists during that time. Although the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that only an aggrieved person can file a defamation case, this provision was routinely violated in defamation cases. In many instances, members of the ruling party filed defamation suits as aggrieved parties in response to criticism of their political leader.
The complicity of the law in human rights violations was reinforced by institutional limitations and weaknesses. For example, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was prohibited by law from directly investigating human rights abuses committed by security forces. This legal restriction, coupled with its lack of independence influenced by political factors, rendered the watchdog body ineffectual and toothless.
Despite more than eight months passing since the resignation of the NHRC’s chairman and members in November of the previous year, a new commission has yet to be established. The interim government had the opportunity to eliminate the legal obstacles facing the NHRC, enhance its institutional capacity, and create a robust and effective commission through a transparent and politically neutral process, which has not been done so far.
The law’s enabling role in facilitating human rights violations was perpetuated by the widespread failure to enforce laws. Poor law enforcement contributes to a culture of impunity for perpetrators, turning the law into a tool of oppression rather than protection. Laws are intended to safeguard human rights and deliver justice; however, when laws are drafted with unclear provisions, applied inconsistently, or manipulated to justify arbitrary detentions, fundamental freedoms are undermined, and discriminatory practices are supported. This scenario is particularly troubling in a country plagued by a fragile rule of law, limited judicial independence, and democratic deficiencies.
The events of July provided an opportunity to initiate comprehensive and systemic legal reforms essential for a renewed Bangladesh. While the ongoing reform agenda may sound promising in theory, its actual implementation remains uncertain. The collective demands and aspirations of the public