Bangladesh and Ors. Vs. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and Ors.

1. Case Title and Citation: 

Full Name of the Case: Bangladesh and Ors. Vs. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust  (BLAST) and Ors.  

Official Citation: 69 DLR(AD) (2017)63, 15ADC (2018)255, 15ADC (2018)255, 3LM(AD)  2017 274, 8SC OB (2016) AD 1 

2. Court Name and Bench: 

Court Name: In The Supreme Court of Bangladesh (Appellate Division) 

Judges and Bench: 

1. Chief Justice Surendra Kumar Sinha,  
2. Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain,  
3. Mr. Justice Hasan Foez Siddique 
4. Mr. Justice Mirza Hussain Haider 

       3.Date of Judgment: 

The Civil Appeal of this case judgment was delivered on 24 May 2016 (Reported in 2017)

4. Parties Involved: 

Appellant: Bangladesh and Ors. 

Defendant: Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and Ors. 

5. Background in Brief 

• The case arose from the High Court Division’s 2003 judgment in BLAST v. Bangladesh,  which issued 15 guidelines to regulate arrest without warrant (Section 54 CrPC,1898) and  police remand (Section 167 CrPC,1898) after a student named Rubel died in police  custody. 
• The Government (Bangladesh and others) appealed against that judgment to the Appellate  Division. 

6. Facts of the Case: 

In 1998, BLAST, Ain o Salish Kendra, Shonmilito Shamajik Andolon, and others filed a writ  petition (Writ Petition 3806 of 1998) and the judgment was pronounced on 07.04.2003 on this  basis in the Supreme Court (High Court Division) these judgement was challenged on the ground  of the abuse of police authority to arrest without a warrant under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC).  

Whereas Section 167 of the same Code addresses the abuse of power when remanding an accused  person into police custody. The petitioners alleged misuse of power, including several human  rights violations such as the death, torture, and inhuman treatment of a young student, Rubel, in  custody after arrest under Section 54 of the CrPC. The High Court Division directed the resolution  of the dispute. The government filed civil appeal no. 53/04, expressing dissatisfaction with the  verdict issued on April 7, 2003 by the Hon’ble High Court Division of the Supreme Court of  Bangladesh. 

7. Main Legal Issues before the Appellate Division (AD): Arguments of the Parties and AD’s Reasoning:  

Issue 1 and Arguments:

• Whether the High Court Division exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing guidelines and  recommending legislative amendments to Section 54 and Section 167 of the CrPC. 

The learned Deputy Attorney General, appearing for the State, advanced the following  arguments:  

The government argued that the High Court had no authority to “rewrite” the law or to direct  Parliament to amend it. 

The learned counsel for the accused/respondent submitted the following arguments: 

The respondents (BLAST, ASK, others) argued that under Articles 31, 32, 33, 35, and 102 of the  Constitution, the judiciary has a duty to protect fundamental rights and may issue guidelines where  there is a legislative vacuum or constitutional breach. 

AD’s reasoning: 

The Appellate Division held that the High Court Division did not exceed its jurisdiction. The Court  may issue guidelines or directives to prevent misuse of law and to protect fundamental rights until  the legislature acts. 

This power flows from Article 102(1) and (2) of the Constitution and is consistent with judicial  practice in many jurisdictions (e.g., India). 

Issue 2 and Arguments:  

• Whether the powers of arrest without warrant under Section 54 CrPC and detention under  Section 167 CrPC are inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the  Constitution. The petitioners had shown that Section 54 and Section 167 were being used  arbitrarily, resulting in custodial torture, deaths, and illegal detention. 

The question was whether these statutory powers, as used, violated Articles 31 and 32 (right to life  and liberty) and Article 33 (safeguards as to arrest and detention). 

AD’s reasoning: 

The Appellate Division reaffirmed that arbitrary arrest and custodial torture are unconstitutional. However, it clarified that Section 54 and Section 167 themselves are not unconstitutional, but their  implementation and misuse must be controlled through judicially enforceable guidelines.

Thus, the Court upheld the spirit of the High Court decision and confirmed that the sections must  be interpreted subject to constitutional safeguards.  

Issue 3 and Arguments:  

• Whether the 15 Guidelines issued by the High Court Division were valid and binding. 

The government argued that the guidelines were “advisory” and not binding, as only Parliament  could make binding laws. 

The respondents argued that in the absence of proper safeguards in the CrPC, the guidelines should  remain binding until law reform occurs. 

AD’s reasoning: 

The Appellate Division affirmed the validity of the guidelines, holding that they are binding  directives to be followed by all law enforcement agencies and magistrates until the legislature  enacts appropriate amendments. 

However, the AD made minor modifications and clarifications to certain guidelines for practical  enforcement. 

Issue 4 and Arguments:  

The scope of judicial power to ensure enforcement of human rights and protection from abuse of  executive power. A key constitutional question was whether the judiciary could intervene in the  domain of the executive (police, investigation, etc.) to ensure rights protection. 

AD’s reasoning: 

The Court reaffirmed the doctrine of separation of powers, but stressed that judicial oversight is  necessary where executive actions threaten fundamental rights. 

Therefore, courts may supervise and issue directions for proper exercise of executive powers — especially those affecting life, liberty, and human dignity 

8. Judgment / Final Decision: 

On May 24, 2016, the Supreme Court’s Appellate Division rejected the Government’s petition and  upheld rules that make sure police powers to make arrests without a warrant and magistrates’ authority to detain people are in conformity with constitutional protections against torture and  arrest. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh’s Appellate Division published nine-point guidelines  for magistrates, judges, and tribunals with the authority to take cognizance of an offense, and ten point guidelines for law enforcement agencies. Which in summary- 

• The Appellate Division upheld the High Court Division’s 2003 judgment in substance. • It approved the 15 Guidelines (with minor modifications) as binding until Parliament  enacts law reform. 
• It reiterated that arbitrary arrest, remand, and custodial torture are violations of Articles 31,  32, and 35 of the Constitution, and police officers engaging in such acts are liable under  both criminal law and constitutional law. 

9. Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi: 

Arrest without warrant under Section 54 and detention and remand under Section 167 of the Code  of Criminal Procedure, 1898 are valid, but they must be exercised strictly in compliance with  Articles 31, 32, and 33 of the Constitution. Arbitrary or abusive use of those powers is  unconstitutional. 

Article 102 of the Constitution allows the judiciary to give binding guidelines and directives to  govern such powers until Parliament passes suitable legislation. 

10. Reflection of the Judgement: Legal Effect and Amendment of the Code of Criminal  Procedure, 1898:  

Since the Interim Government (August 2025) amended the Code of Criminal Procedure to codify  many of these safeguards (e.g., written arrest memo, lawyer access, medical examination), the  ratio decidendi remains relevant as the constitutional foundation of those reforms. The 2025  amendment transforms the judicially-created guidelines into statutory law, but the ratio still serves  as a constitutional benchmark for evaluating any future executive or legislative deviation. In short,  these amendments, officially gazetted on 10th August, 2025, mainly focused to balance- 

• Judicial Power.  
• Maintain constitutionality in application of the law.  
• Validity of Guidelines and enforcement. 
• Human Rights Protection as guaranteed under the supreme law of the land. 

Observation 

1. The Guidelines Case affirmed that protections in the Constitution of Bangladesh (such as  Articles 31, 32, 33, 35) impose an obligation on the police and magistracy to respect life,  liberty, due process and safeguards during arrest and remand. The judiciary stepped in to  prescribe binding guidelines until legislative reform occurred. 
2. The amendment of the CrPC on 10 August 2025 via the Ordinance reflects a significant  step by the interim government to bring statute into closer alignment with the judicially mandated guidelines. For example, the amendment introduces provisions on mandatory arrest memo, officer identification, access to lawyers/family, early medical attention to  arrestees, use of technology in summons/notice.  
3. While the legislative amendment is a positive development, there remains a gap between  formal law and practical implementation. The mere insertion of safeguards does not  guarantee their effective application. Institutional culture (police practice, magistrate  discretion), resource constraints, training, monitoring and accountability mechanisms  remain key for real change. 
4. The Guidelines Case emphasized that arrest under Section 54 and remand under Section  167 of the CrPC, when exercised arbitrarily, breach fundamental rights. The amendment  now provides a statutory backing for many of the guidelines, thus strengthening the legal  framework. However, how enforcement, judicial oversight and remedy mechanisms will  function in practice remains an observation point for future research. 
5. The amendment on 10 August also signals a recognition by the state of the conditional  nature of judicially-mandated directives:  once the legislature acts, judicial guidelines may be incorporated into law. This transition from  guideline to statute is important for legal certainty and predictability.
6. It is also observed that the interim government’s reform move came after a long period of  delayed legislative action following the 2003 High Court judgment and the 2017 Appellate  Division affirmation. These legal highlights the challenges of legal reform in procedural  criminal law in Bangladesh, especially where executive/practice culture resists change.

       11. Conclusion:  

In conclusion, the interplay between the judiciary and legislature in Bangladesh, as manifested in  the Guidelines Case (69 DLR (AD) 2017 63) and the 2025 amendment of the CrPC, illustrates a  constructive model of incremental reform in criminal procedure. The Appellate Division’s  affirmation of binding guidelines marked a turning point in protecting fundamental rights in arrest  and remand. The subsequent legislative amendment on 10 August 2025 translates many of those  judicial safeguards into statutory law, affirming the primacy of life and liberty over executive  convenience. 

Nevertheless, legal reform is only half-the battle. The real measure of success will lie in consistent,  transparent implementation: whether arresting officers display proper identification, whether  arrestees receive prompt access to family or lawyer, whether remand orders reflect independent  judicial mind, whether monitoring and remedy mechanisms prevent custodial abuses. The  amendment provides the tools; the challenge now is operationalizing them. In that sense, this guidelines case remains relevant not only as constitutional jurisprudence but as a benchmark for  assessing Bangladesh’s criminal justice system reform. 

Finally, the case and amendment together underscore a broader message: Procedural protections  matter as much as substantive rights. A state that guarantees arrest powers but lacks meaningful  safeguards risks undermining the very constitutional values it claims to protect. The 2025  amendment suggests Bangladesh is moving towards closing that gap, but as a scholar, one should  remain vigilant and empirical in evaluating how theory translates into practice.