Aynunnahar Siddiqua and Others v Government of Bangladesh and Others

Case Title & Citation 

Aynunnahar Siddiqua and Others v Government of Bangladesh and Others [2017] 37 BLD 181

Court Name 

Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division 

Bench Strength 

2 Judges 

Date of Judgment 

17 August 2016 (reported in 2017) 

Parties Involved 

Petitioner: Aynunnahar Siddiqua and Others 

Respondent: Government of Bangladesh and Others 

Brief Description of Parties 

Petitioner (Aynunnahar Siddiqua and Others): Citizens of Dhaka, Bangladesh challenged the legality of personal information collection by police, with the “violation of privacy rights” under Article 32 of the Constitution, claim. 

Respondent (Government of Bangladesh and Others): Dhaka Police and Government authorities, defended the practice as a “necessary step”, for public safety and crime prevention.

Background and Context 

The ” Aynunnahar Siddiqua and Others v Government of Bangladesh and Others ” case came to light in the midst of growing concerns about public safety and crime prevention in Dhaka, Bangladesh. To prevent potential threats from criminal and terrorist activities, the Dhaka Police, under Rule 3(4) (kha) of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police (Direction and Control) Rules, 2006, started collecting personal information from residents. While the government argued that this was a necessary measure to maintain peace and public safety, the petitioners confronted it as a violation of their constitutional right to privacy under Article 32. Therefore, with the case the question arose, how the state’s responsibility to ensure public security can be maintained while protecting individual privacy rights. 

Facts of the Case 

1. Dhaka Police collected various personal data (religion, professional addresses, marital status, phone numbers, email IDs, National ID numbers, passport numbers, emergency contacts, domestic help and driver’s information, photos) of residents in Dhaka. 
2. The data collection was executed under Rule 3(4) (kha) of the Dhaka Metropolitan Police (Direction and Control) Rules, 2006. 
3. Petitioners filed Public Interest Litigation under Article 102, claiming that the collection breached constitutional privacy rights. 
4. Respondents claimed that the data was collected to obstruct criminal or terror attacks in the future. 
5. The Court was asked to dictate whether Rule 3(4) (kha) was ultra vires the Constitution of Bangladesh. 
6. The court reviewed both parties’ arguments while examining Rule 3(4) (kha) in light of constitutional privacy rights. 
7. The court declared that the right to privacy cannot be violated in the name of surveillance while also observing that by collecting personal data to maintain peace and safety, Dhaka police did not violate the right to privacy.

Issues Raised 

Did the collection of personal data align with the principles of public interest, or did it violate the right to privacy guaranteed by the constitution? 

Was Dhaka Police given unrestricted power through Rule 3(4) (kha)? 

Did the Rule 3(4) (kha) ultra vires the Constitution? 

Could the collection of data result in arbitrary exercise of power? 

Were there enough safeguards to obstruct misuse of Dhaka residents’ data?

Arguments of the Parties 

Petitioner’s Contentions 

Rule 3(4) (kha) gave unrestricted powers and also violated constitutional rights. A mass surveillance program was conducted in disguise of the collection. Lack of safety mechanisms increased the risk of misuse of data. 

Respondents’ Contentions 

In valid consideration of public safety, the right to privacy is not absolute. In order to maintain the peace and safety of the country data collection was necessary. It was not an arbitrary action; measures were guided by public interest. 

The committee followed the safety mechanisms for proper database management.

Judgment 

The unanimous decision was declared in favor of respondents. Stating that collection of information has not violated privacy rights. Data collection is allowed for public safety purposes though the information collection must be reasonable and must not unjustly interfere with individual privacy.

Legal Reasoning 

Resident’s personal information was collected in the public’s interest. Rule 3(4) (kha) allowed the collection in order to maintain peace and safety, rather than for arbitrary intentions. There is a presumption that public authorities operate rationally and without arbitrariness. Forms are allowed for partial disclosure, and oversight measures are taken to avoid abuse. Data privacy was safeguarded while allowing the state to take necessary security measures. 

Significant Precedents 

Article 32, Constitution of Bangladesh,1972- Right to Personal Liberty 

Dhaka Metropolitan Police (Direction and Control) Rules, 2006, Rule3(4) (kha)

Conclusion 

Therefore, the Court declared that collecting personal information for law enforcement or public safety doesn’t necessarily breach constitutional privacy rights as long as safety measures are taken. This case draws a clear line, the public’s safety matters, but so do individual rights, privacy protections aren’t optional. 

Bibliography 

Primary Sources 

Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh 1972, art 32 

https://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-367/section-24580.html accessed 28 October 2025 

Dhaka Metropolitan Police (Direction and Control) Rules 2006, r 3(4)(kha) https://dmp.gov.bd/dmp-ordinance/ accessed 28 October 2025 

Cases 

Aynunnahar Siddiqua and Others v Government of Bangladesh and Others [2017] 37 BLD 181 (HCD)

https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/aynunnahar-siddiqua-and-ors-vs-government-of-banglade sh-and-ors accessed 28 October 2025