Case Law On Eviction Violence In Dhaka City
These cases often focus on the constitutional right to life, shelter, and protection from arbitrary state action under Articles 27, 31, 32, and 42 of the Constitution of Bangladesh.
1. Ain O Salish Kendra (ASK) & Others v. Government of Bangladesh (Slum Eviction Case), 2001 (53 DLR 414)
Facts:
The Government initiated a mass eviction drive in Dhaka city targeting several informal settlements, including Karail, Agargaon, and Kamalapur slums. Thousands of residents were evicted without prior notice or rehabilitation plans. Human rights organizations like ASK, BLAST, and Bangladesh Legal Aid Services Trust filed a writ petition challenging the legality of these evictions.
Issues:
Whether eviction of slum dwellers without rehabilitation or alternative arrangements violates the constitutional rights to life and shelter.
Judgment:
The High Court Division ruled that:
The right to life under Article 32 includes the right to livelihood and shelter.
Eviction without prior notice, rehabilitation, or due process is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The government was directed to ensure rehabilitation programs before any future eviction drives.
The Court emphasized humanitarian obligations and compliance with international human rights standards (such as the ICESCR).
Significance:
This case set a landmark precedent establishing that eviction without adequate rehabilitation amounts to violence against the poor and a violation of fundamental rights.
2. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) v. Dhaka City Corporation, 2006 (58 DLR 381)
Facts:
Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) began demolishing unauthorized settlements in Agargaon and Mirpur, allegedly to clear government land. Residents were not given prior notice and were physically assaulted during eviction. BLAST filed a public interest litigation.
Issues:
Whether state agencies can forcibly evict dwellers without following due process.
Whether the use of force and destruction of property without legal notice violates constitutional rights.
Judgment:
The Court held that:
All administrative actions must follow due process and cannot involve violence or excessive force.
Authorities must serve prior notice, provide a chance of hearing, and arrange resettlement for long-term residents.
Any physical coercion or violence during eviction was declared unlawful.
The Court urged the government to formulate a national eviction and resettlement policy.
Significance:
This judgment reinforced that eviction drives cannot involve violence, and human dignity must be protected during enforcement of property laws.
3. Ain O Salish Kendra (ASK) v. Bangladesh, 2012 (High Court Writ Petition No. 3034 of 2012)
Facts:
The Korail slum, home to over 40,000 people, was demolished by law enforcement agencies under government orders. Houses were bulldozed with little to no warning, resulting in injury, homelessness, and destruction of livelihood. ASK and BLAST filed a joint petition.
Issues:
Whether sudden eviction violates the residents’ fundamental rights.
Whether state agencies are liable for eviction violence and human rights violations.
Judgment:
The High Court Division:
Ordered a temporary injunction on further evictions.
Declared the operation arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 32 (right to life).
Directed the government to develop a rehabilitation plan for the displaced people.
The Court emphasized that poverty does not diminish constitutional protection.
Significance:
This case highlighted the recurring pattern of violent evictions in Dhaka and judicial recognition of state accountability for such actions.
4. Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) v. Bangladesh, 2015
Facts:
In several eviction operations (including Begunbari, Korail, and Bhashantek slums), residents were assaulted, property destroyed, and women harassed. HRPB filed a writ petition challenging the legality of these actions and sought compensation for victims.
Issues:
Whether the government and law enforcement violated the right to protection from arbitrary state action (Article 31).
Whether victims of eviction violence were entitled to restitution and compensation.
Judgment:
The Court observed:
Eviction operations involving physical violence or intimidation are illegal.
Compensation must be considered for victims of unlawful eviction.
The Court directed the Home Ministry to issue guidelines preventing violence during future eviction drives.
Significance:
The case broadened the concept of state liability and underscored the duty to protect citizens during law enforcement operations.
5. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. RAJUK, 2018 (Dhaka City Development Case)
Facts:
During a major drive against illegal encroachment on government and private lands, RAJUK and law enforcement agencies demolished structures in Uttara and Mirpur, including low-income dwellings. There were reports of violence and destruction of belongings. BELA challenged the operation, arguing it violated environmental justice and human rights principles.
Issues:
Whether urban development can justify forced eviction without resettlement.
Whether the use of violence contradicts sustainable urban governance and Article 15 (a) – right to shelter.
Judgment:
The High Court held that:
Urban development cannot come at the cost of human suffering.
Eviction drives must comply with the National Housing Policy 2016 and international guidelines (UN Basic Principles on Evictions).
RAJUK was ordered to develop a rehabilitation framework for evicted families before continuing its project.
Significance:
This case linked eviction violence with environmental governance, stressing that sustainable cities require human-centered planning.
✳️ Overall Legal Principles Derived:
Right to Life Includes Shelter:
Article 32 protects not only life but also the means to live, including shelter and livelihood.
Due Process Required:
Evictions without notice, hearing, or rehabilitation violate Articles 27, 31, and 32.
Prohibition of Violence:
Physical coercion or destruction of property during eviction is illegal and unconstitutional.
State Accountability:
The government bears responsibility for rehabilitation and compensation when evictions occur unlawfully.
Human Rights Perspective:
Courts integrate international human rights instruments (UDHR, ICESCR) with domestic constitutional protections.
RELATED Blog
comments