IN BANGLADESH, certain law enforcement activities, though legally sanctioned, often face significant public disapproval due to their direct impact on people’s lives, livelihoods, and freedoms. Despite operating within legal frameworks, some police actions — along with mobile court operations — frequently encounter resistance, criticism, and allegations of bias or misuse of power. Concerns often arise when these measures are perceived as disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities, being selectively enforced, or lacking transparency. As a result, public trust in law enforcement can be undermined, highlighting the need for greater accountability, fairness, and communication in the execution of such operations.
Ìý
Law enforcement and public order
A POLICE search of a house is a significant exercise of authority that must strictly adhere to legal procedures to safeguard citizens’ privacy and rights. In most cases, it requires a warrant issued by a competent judicial authority, detailing the reasons for the search and the specific areas to be examined. However, certain circumstances may allow for a warrantless search, in which case officers must provide a clear legal justification.
During the search, law enforcement officers are required to identify themselves, present the warrant when applicable, or explain the legal basis for proceeding without one. They must conduct the search with minimal intrusion or damage, ensuring transparency and adherence to protocol within the framework of the law to prevent abuse of power and maintain public trust. Any evidence or items seized must be properly documented, and the rights of the occupants must be respected throughout the process.
Stop and search operations, while intended to enhance security and prevent criminal activities, are often perceived as intrusive and a form of harassment, particularly when conducted near highways, markets, and educational institutions. Commuters and transport operators frequently complain about unnecessary delays, while traders and business owners express frustration over disruptions to their daily activities. In educational areas, students and faculty members sometimes view these operations as intimidating, especially when conducted without clear justification or transparency. Concerns about selective targeting, profiling, and the potential misuse of authority further contribute to public apprehension, raising questions about the balance between security measures and individual rights.
Nighttime and roadside checkpoints, intended to enhance security and deter criminal activities, are often perceived as obstructions that cause inconvenience to commuters and businesses. Similarly, arbitrary identity checks and documentation verification, though justified as measures for crime prevention and law enforcement, are frequently criticised for leading to harassment, undue delays, and profiling based on social or ethnic backgrounds. Furthermore, the surveillance and monitoring of public gatherings, which involve the deployment of plainclothes officers and the use of close-circuit cameras, have sparked concerns over privacy violations, potential misuse of surveillance data, and the suppression of activism and free expression. These practices, while aimed at maintaining law and order, often generate public distrust and raise questions about their proportionality and impact on civil liberties.
Ìý
Eviction and livelihood disruptions
THE eviction of slums and the removal of unauthorised street vendors, often carried out in the name of urban development, traffic management, or public order, have profound socioeconomic consequences, particularly for low-income communities. These operations displace thousands of individuals who rely on informal businesses and low-cost housing for their survival, pushing them into deeper financial distress. Street vendors, who provide affordable goods and services to urban populations, often face abrupt removals without viable alternatives, leading to loss of income and unemployment. Similarly, slum dwellers, many of whom are daily wage earners, are frequently evicted without proper resettlement plans, forcing them into precarious living conditions. These actions frequently spark protests from affected groups and human rights organisations, who argue that such evictions violate fundamental rights to shelter and livelihood. Allegations of excessive force, lack of due process, and political or commercial motives further intensify public outrage. While authorities justify these drives as necessary for maintaining order and ensuring accessibility in crowded urban areas, critics argue that a more balanced approach — such as providing designated vending zones and affordable housing — would be a fairer and more sustainable solution.
Recently, in Dhanmondi, a teenage boy running a small roadside food stall had his business demolished during a mobile court operation led by an executive magistrate. Arguing that he had committed no crime, the boy, a struggling student supporting his family, insisted that while the police could arrest him, they had no right to destroy his stall. In frustration, he extended his hands, daring the police to arrest him, which they ultimately did on the magistrate’s order. While in the police vehicle, some officers reportedly struck him. This incident highlights the stark contrast between legal enforcement and personal struggle — while the authorities deemed his actions illegal, the boy saw himself as merely trying to survive, raising moral questions beyond legal justifications.
During operations, police officers may not always perfectly judge the boundary between enforcement and overreach, but professionalism requires them to recognise when they are crossing the line. This awareness is cultivated through extensive training and strict legal guidelines. Officers must not let personal anger or frustration influence their actions, ensuring that their temperament does not overshadow their organisational role. Even if they struggle personally, they must maintain self-control and avoid taking out their emotions on the accused.
The demolition of illegal structures and the eviction of encroachers from public lands and railway properties often lead to significant social unrest, as affected individuals frequently claim implicit permission to settle due to prolonged occupation and informal arrangements with local authorities. Many residents and business owners argue that they have lived or operated in these spaces for years, paying informal taxes or fees, and therefore deserve legal recognition or compensation before displacement. The sudden nature of these evictions often results in violent confrontations between law enforcement agencies and those being removed, as families and business owners resist losing their homes and sources of income without alternative arrangements. Protests and legal challenges commonly follow, with demands for rehabilitation, compensation, or resettlement programmes. Human rights organisations and activists criticise these operations for disproportionately affecting the poor, who often lack the resources to relocate or challenge evictions legally. While authorities justify these actions as necessary for infrastructure development, environmental conservation, or urban planning, the lack of prior consultation and adequate rehabilitation measures continues to fuel resentment, highlighting the need for a more humane and structured approach to addressing illegal settlements.
Ìý
Restrictions on public assemblies and expression
RESTRICTIONS on public demonstrations, police actions during hartals (strikes) and blockades, and arrests related to defamation, cyber offences, or social media posts have sparked widespread concerns about the suppression of civil liberties and political bias. Authorities often justify limitations on public gatherings as necessary for maintaining public order and preventing disruptions; however, critics argue that these restrictions disproportionately target opposition groups, activists, and dissenting voices, undermining the democratic right to peaceful assembly. Similarly, law enforcement actions during hartals and blockades, such as baton charges, tear gas deployment, and mass arrests, are frequently criticised for excessive use of force, raising concerns about selective enforcement and political suppression. The detainment of individuals on charges related to defamation, cyber offences, or social media posts has further fuelled allegations of curbing freedom of expression, as journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens have faced legal repercussions for expressing dissenting views. Such actions contribute to a climate of fear and self-censorship, discouraging open political discourse and public criticism. While authorities cite national security and public order as justifications for these measures, the growing perception of bias and disproportionate responses highlights the need for a more balanced approach that upholds both security and fundamental democratic rights.
Ìý
Private vehicle requisition for police and government use
THE practice of requisitioning private vehicles for official police purposes in Bangladesh, though legally sanctioned and compensated by the government, often creates significant inconvenience and dissatisfaction among vehicle owners. Many owners find the compensation inadequate and the process disruptive, particularly when their vehicles are required at short notice or for extended periods. This practice also raises concerns about the equitable application of requisition orders and the lack of sufficient government-owned resources to fulfil official needs. Addressing these issues may require reforms, such as improving the compensation framework, limiting the duration of requisitions, and expanding government vehicle fleets to reduce reliance on private property, thereby balancing state needs with public convenience and trust.
Crackdowns on unregistered or unauthorised vehicles and the enforcement of traffic rules and fines are intended to improve road safety and maintain order, but they often generate frustration among vehicle owners, drivers, and the general public. Many drivers of unauthorised vehicles, such as motorcycles, rickshaws, and makeshift transport services, argue that they operate out of economic necessity and that sudden crackdowns severely impact their livelihoods. Additionally, vehicle owners who struggle with bureaucratic delays in registration and licensing often view these enforcement measures as unfair, especially when alternatives or solutions are not provided. The imposition of traffic fines, while essential for ensuring compliance with road regulations, frequently leads to allegations of selective enforcement, where traffic police are accused of targeting certain groups while ignoring violations by influential individuals or commercial transport operators. Corruption further exacerbates public resentment, as some motorists claim they are unfairly penalised or pressured to offer bribes to avoid fines. While authorities defend these measures as crucial for reducing accidents, easing congestion, and ensuring public safety, the perceived inconsistency in enforcement and the financial burden on lower-income drivers highlight the need for a more transparent, fair, and supportive approach, including awareness campaigns and streamlined regulatory processes.
Ìý
Crime prevention and security operations
DRUG raids, anti-narcotics operations, enforcement of curfews and movement restrictions, and arrests under preventive detention laws are often justified as essential measures for maintaining law and order, but they frequently raise concerns about human rights violations, excessive force, and political misuse. While drug raids aim to curb the spread of narcotics and dismantle trafficking networks, allegations of extrajudicial actions, false accusations, and the targeting of marginalised communities create widespread apprehension. Many fear that individuals, particularly from lower-income backgrounds, may be unfairly implicated or used as scapegoats, while major drug operators remain beyond the reach of law enforcement. Similarly, the enforcement of curfews and movement restrictions, especially during political unrest or national emergencies, often leads to frustration when measures appear excessive or disproportionately impact ordinary citizens, restricting their ability to work, travel, or access essential services. The arrest and detention of individuals under preventive detention laws and the Special Powers Act of 1974 further fuel concerns about political bias, as opposition leaders, activists, and critics of the government frequently face detention without formal charges. Critics argue that such laws, originally designed for public safety, are sometimes exploited as tools for silencing dissent or consolidating political power. While authorities maintain that these measures are crucial for national security and public order, the lack of transparency, due process, and accountability highlights the need for more balanced, legally sound, and rights-based enforcement practices.
Ìý
Cultural, religious, and social restrictions
STRICT law enforcement during religious or cultural gatherings, the enforcement of noise pollution and public nuisance laws, and the implementation of anti-begging and vagrancy laws are often justified as necessary for maintaining public order, but they frequently spark criticism for being excessive, selective, or inhumane. Heavy-handed policing at religious or cultural events, such as processions, festivals, or large congregations, is sometimes perceived as an unnecessary intervention that disrupts traditional practices and creates tension between authorities and communities. Similarly, the enforcement of noise pollution and public nuisance laws, while aimed at reducing disturbances, is often seen as selectively applied, with religious, social, and cultural traditions disproportionately affected while political or commercial activities receive leniency. Crackdowns on begging and vagrancy, especially before major national or international events, are widely condemned as lacking compassion, as they displace some of society’s most vulnerable individuals without addressing the root causes of poverty and homelessness. Critics argue that rather than penalising those in need, authorities should focus on long-term rehabilitation programmes, social welfare initiatives, and inclusive policies that respect cultural traditions while ensuring public order. While law enforcement agencies emphasise the necessity of these regulations for public safety and urban management, a more balanced, transparent, and community-orientated approach could help reduce public resentment and foster greater trust in legal authorities.
Ìý
Militarisation of police
THE militarisation of police forces refers to the adoption of military-grade equipment, tactics, and mindsets by law enforcement agencies, often in the name of combating crime and maintaining public order. While such measures are justified for counter-terrorism or extreme public safety threats, their excessive use can escalate situations, foster fear in communities, and blur the line between civilian policing and military operations. The deployment of armoured vehicles, assault weapons, and combat gear in routine law enforcement scenarios risks alienating the public, particularly in peaceful protests or low-threat situations. Militarisation shifts the focus from community-orientated policing to a more confrontational approach, which can erode trust and contribute to cycles of violence. To strike a balance, law enforcement agencies must prioritise de-escalation strategies, invest in community engagement, and reserve militarised tools strictly for extraordinary circumstances.
In democratic societies, laws are expected to reflect the evolving values, beliefs, and expectations of the people. However, legal provisions may sometimes become outdated, failing to keep pace with societal progress, technological advancements, or shifts in public opinion. When laws are perceived as unjust, overly restrictive, or misaligned with contemporary social norms, they often face strong opposition, resulting in mass disobedience, civil disobedience movements, or widespread public campaigns demanding legal reform. Historical examples include struggles for civil rights, gender equality, and the decriminalisation of certain social behaviours that were once considered unlawful. In such situations, law enforcement agencies face the complex challenge of upholding existing laws while navigating widespread public dissent. A rigid or forceful approach can escalate tensions, leading to protests, confrontations, or even violent clashes. To prevent such crises and restore faith in the rule of law, law enforcement must prioritise transparent communication, actively engage with communities to understand their concerns, and ensure procedural fairness in their actions. By adopting a balanced approach that respects legal mandates and public sentiment, democratic institutions can facilitate peaceful reforms while maintaining social stability and order.
Public disapproval of police activities primarily stems from concerns over civil rights, livelihoods, and freedom of movement, highlighting the gap between legal justification and public perception. While law enforcement agencies operate within legal mandates, enhancing transparency, communication, and humane policy implementation can reduce resistance and improve public trust. Adopting a community-orientated approach through awareness campaigns, alternative rehabilitation measures, and engagement with affected communities can further mitigate discontent. Balancing strict enforcement with empathy and social considerations remains a key challenge for policing in Bangladesh.
ÌýTo be continued.
Ìý
Dr Md Motiar Rahman is a retired deputy inspector general of police.
