Bangladesh’s interim government has enacted the July Uprising (Protection and Liability Determination) Ordinance, 2026, which grants legal immunity to individuals involved in the July–August 2024 uprising. The ordinance requires the withdrawal of all existing civil and criminal cases related to this uprising and prohibits the filing of new cases against these “July fighters,” as defined by the government. Additionally, it assigns the investigation of any killings during this period to the National Human Rights Commission, while restricting law enforcement agencies and institutional officials from conducting such investigations.
International human rights law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), guarantees victims of rights violations the right to legal redress, fair procedures, and access to courts. Articles 6–11 explicitly affirm that individuals may seek remedies when their rights are infringed. By granting blanket immunity that prevents victims from filing or pursuing claims related to the July uprising, these protections are denied, in violation of Bangladesh’s international commitments.
In the aftermath of the protests, Bangladesh endured a sustained wave of mob violence and politically motivated killings. Numerous incidents underscored this trend, with law enforcement frequently targeted. During this period, several police stations were attacked. One notable incident in 2024 saw a mob besiege the Baniachong police station in Habiganj District, seize firearms, and kill a sub-inspector on the spot. Likewise, the Enayetpur police station in Sirajganj was assaulted, resulting in the deaths of multiple police officers as tensions mounted. These violent confrontations highlight how unrest surrounding the protests escalated into lethal mob assaults against state authorities and institutions. Large numbers of civilians, including students and members of minority communities, also fell victim to mob violence. Acts tantamount to cultural genocide became commonplace. Overall, statistical evidence indicates that 2024 ranks among the most violent years in Bangladesh’s history since independence.
By granting legal protection to those responsible for extensive violence, killings, and assaults during and after the uprising, the ordinance entrenches a culture of impunity for grave offences, including murder, arson, and other violent acts. Legal scholars have repeatedly cautioned that such sweeping immunity measures effectively legitimise violence by preventing offenders from being held accountable and by undermining the rule of law.
Bangladesh’s own history underscores this danger. The 1975 indemnity ordinance, which shielded the killers of national leaders from prosecution, remained a stain on the legal system for decades until it was repealed. Similarly, the indemnity granted after the 2003 Joint Drive operation was later struck down for being unconstitutional. These precedents demonstrate that laws granting sweeping immunity often erode legal norms and public trust rather than promote justice.
Bangladesh’s Constitution guarantees fundamental rights that conflict with broad immunity for violent acts. Article 27 ensures equality before the law and equal protection, meaning that any law exempting a group from accountability for criminal acts clearly violates this principle. Article 31 protects citizens from arbitrary deprivation of life, while Article 35 affirms the right to a fair trial and justice through independent tribunals. The indemnity ordinance’s exclusion of judicial proceedings—even in cases involving serious allegations of killings and mob violence—contradicts these constitutional safeguards.
The government has cited Article 46 to justify the indemnity provisions, comparing them to those introduced after the 1971 Liberation War. However, legal critics argue that invoking Article 46 in the context of internal political upheaval stretches the constitutional provision beyond its original purpose, potentially undermining the constitutional framework designed to balance state authority with individual rights.
At its core, justice is not a procedural abstraction but a societal mechanism that recognises harm, hears victims, and holds perpetrators accountable. By eliminating legal avenues for accountability, the ordinance effectively denies victims and their families—including those of civilians, students, police officers, and others—their right to redress.
International human rights standards emphasise that holding authorities accountable for serious violations, such as unlawful killings, is essential to preventing ongoing violence and promoting lasting peace. A growing global consensus, evident in transitional justice frameworks, prioritises accountability, truth, and reparations over blanket amnesties that shield perpetrators.
The ordinance raises serious concerns because it shields violent conduct from judicial review and effective investigation. Transferring investigative authority to a limited oversight commission and restricting the involvement of law enforcement agencies and courts weakens the separation of powers and judicial independence, both of which are vital to constitutional democracy. Additionally, immunity provisions could be exploited to protect politically connected individuals or groups, leaving ordinary victims—such as minorities, civilians unaffiliated with any faction, or those caught in the unrest—without avenues for justice. A justice system incapable of holding offenders accountable for severe violence risks fostering lawlessness, deepening social divisions, and eroding trust in government institutions.
The July Uprising Immunity Ordinance, even if presented as a measure to protect political participants, raises profound human rights and constitutional concerns. It denies victims access to justice, conflicts with constitutional guarantees of equality and due process, and undermines international human rights obligations, thereby setting a dangerous precedent for Bangladesh’s democracy.
A democratic legal system requires accountability that respects victims’ rights, maintains judicial independence, and prevents political labels from shielding serious crimes. Rather than granting blanket immunity, Bangladesh needs transparent and fair legal processes that balance reconciliation with accountability, ensuring that those responsible for violence and atrocities are fairly judged.
Justice delayed is justice denied, but immunity altogether erodes democracy. Bangladesh must prioritise justice and accountability over impunity to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights and dignity of its citizens.
