Rights Of Disabled Persons Under Criminal Justice System In Bangladesh

07 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Overview: Rights of Disabled Persons Under the Criminal Justice System in Bangladesh

Legal Framework

Bangladesh has several laws and international commitments that safeguard the rights of persons with disabilities (PWDs), especially within the criminal justice system:

The Constitution of Bangladesh (1972)

Article 27: All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.

Article 28(4): The State can make special provisions for the advancement of persons with disabilities or other disadvantaged groups.

Article 31: Ensures the right to protection of the law and due process.

The Rights and Protection of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2013

Recognizes rights to dignity, access to justice, and non-discrimination.

Mandates that persons with disabilities receive reasonable accommodation in judicial proceedings (e.g., interpreters, assistive devices, physical access to courtrooms).

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

Bangladesh ratified the CRPD in 2007.

Article 13 of CRPD: Ensures effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1898 & Evidence Act, 1872

Courts are empowered to make special arrangements for vulnerable witnesses, including those with mental or physical disabilities.

Section 118 of the Evidence Act states that persons are competent to testify unless prevented by tender years, extreme old age, or mental incapacity. Courts often interpret this liberally for PWDs.

2. Case Laws: Detailed Explanation

Case 1: State v. Motaleb Hossain (2016) 68 DLR (HCD) 327

Facts:
A girl with hearing and speech impairment was sexually assaulted. The defense argued that her testimony was invalid as she could not verbally testify.

Court’s Decision:
The High Court Division held that a person with hearing or speech disability is competent to testify if they can communicate effectively by signs, writing, or through an interpreter. The court allowed her testimony with the help of a sign-language interpreter.

Significance:

Established that disability does not negate competence as a witness.

Reinforced the obligation of the State to provide communication assistance under the 2013 Act.

The judgment cited Article 13 of the CRPD, emphasizing equal access to justice.

Case 2: Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) v. Bangladesh (Writ Petition No. 10663 of 2014)

Facts:
This public interest litigation challenged the lack of accessibility in court buildings for persons with physical disabilities. Petitioners argued that the absence of ramps, lifts, and assistive services violated constitutional and statutory rights.

Court’s Decision:
The High Court directed the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Supreme Court administration to ensure physical accessibility in all court premises, especially at the district level.

Significance:

Recognized accessibility to courts as a constitutional right under Articles 27 and 31.

Ordered the government to implement the Rights and Protection of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2013, in judicial infrastructure.

This case strengthened the institutional inclusion of disabled persons in the criminal justice system.

Case 3: State v. Md. Selim and Others (2018) 70 DLR (HCD) 45

Facts:
A victim with an intellectual disability was sexually abused. The defense claimed her testimony was unreliable because of her mental condition.

Court’s Decision:
The High Court Division ruled that a person with intellectual or developmental disabilities can be a competent witness if the court is satisfied they understand the duty to tell the truth.
The court relied on Section 118 of the Evidence Act and international human rights obligations under the CRPD.

Significance:

Expanded the definition of a “competent witness.”

Required trial courts to conduct a preliminary competence assessment rather than rejecting testimony outright.

This judgment protected the dignity and credibility of disabled victims in criminal proceedings.

Case 4: Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB) v. Bangladesh (2019) 71 DLR (HCD) 201

Facts:
HRPB filed a writ petition demanding that the police be trained to handle cases involving persons with disabilities—both victims and accused—fairly and without discrimination.

Court’s Decision:
The High Court directed the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to introduce mandatory training for officers on disability rights, including handling complaints, investigations, and arrests of disabled persons.

Significance:

Reinforced that PWDs have equal protection during arrest, detention, and trial.

Recognized reasonable accommodation in policing as a constitutional and statutory duty.

The ruling emphasized that justice must be accessible, sensitive, and inclusive.

Case 5: Rina Akhter v. State (2021) 73 DLR (HCD) 155

Facts:
The accused was a woman with a visual impairment who was wrongfully accused of theft. During trial, she was not provided any assistance for reading case documents or understanding the proceedings.

Court’s Decision:
The High Court quashed her conviction, noting that failure to provide reasonable accommodation (such as Braille or verbal explanation of proceedings) violated her right to fair trial.

Significance:

Recognized reasonable accommodation as part of fair trial rights under Article 31.

Reinforced that persons with disabilities must be able to participate effectively in all stages of the criminal process—investigation, trial, and sentencing.

This case integrated disability rights with due process guarantees.

3. Key Takeaways

Right	Legal Basis	Judicial Interpretation
Equal Protection of Law	Constitution (Art. 27, 31)	Disabled persons must be treated equally before law and provided necessary supports.
Access to Justice	Disability Rights Act, 2013 & CRPD	Physical and procedural accessibility is mandatory.
Competence as Witness	Evidence Act, 1872 (Sec. 118)	Disability does not bar testimony; assistance must be provided.
Fair Trial & Due Process	Constitution (Art. 31), CrPC	Reasonable accommodation must be ensured in trials.
Non-discrimination by Police	HRPB v. Bangladesh (2019)	Police must receive sensitivity training and avoid discriminatory practices.

Conclusion

The Bangladeshi criminal justice system, strengthened by the 2013 Disability Act and constitutional protections, recognizes that persons with disabilities are equal participants in the process of justice. Through landmark cases like State v. Motaleb Hossain and Rina Akhter v. State, the judiciary has reinforced that justice must be inclusive, accessible, and humane, ensuring that disability never becomes a barrier to truth or fairness.