Abets mob terrorism, calls rule of law into question

When a uniform begins policing morality rather than crime, where does the law draw the line? Can the police decide what a citizen may wear, where personal freedom ends and their authority begins? These questions have become increasingly urgent as police interference in personal freedom and “moral policing” draw growing criticism.

The debate sharpened after police stopped a marathon runner in a T-shirt and sports shorts following his morning workout, branded his attire “indecent”, barred him from entering the metro rail and kept him standing for nearly 40 minutes.

Such conduct appears to trespass beyond police jurisdiction and collide with constitutional rights. Though Bangladeshi laws neither criminalise “moral policing” nor permit such interference, restricting citizens according to personal moral standards cannot be justified.

More alarming is when senior police officials attempt to justify such overreach to media outlets like the BBC by misinterpreting the law. Ali Ashraf Siddiqui, Additional Superintendent of Police (MRT Police), told the BBC that the officer had merely “raised awareness” after a senior citizen and a woman complained about the passenger’s attire. But can police intervene simply because someone objects to another person’s clothing? If the account is false, it raises serious questions about acting beyond jurisdiction, practising moral policing and encouraging mob harassment.

Such practices erode the rule of law, personal liberty and public trust, while giving legitimacy to mob justice and nurturing fear. Police should instead uphold legal procedures, act impartially and prevent mob violence and extremism.

Siddiqui further claimed that “The Public Nuisance Act” states that police can take action if any “respectable” citizen feels uncomfortable because of someone’s attire. In fact, Bangladesh has no law titled the “Public Nuisance Act”. If he was referring to Section 268 of the Penal Code, 1860, it defines public nuisance as: “A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, dangers or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.”

The section does not classify clothing as public nuisance. Rather, it discourages such an interpretation by stating: “A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.” His interpretation therefore appears incorrect.

If the laws governing the duties and responsibilities of the police force are reviewed, does moral policing fall within their duties? The Police Act 1861 requires police to execute lawful orders, maintain public safety, prevent crime and breaches of peace, investigate offences and bring offenders to justice. The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empowers them to arrest suspects in cognizable offences without warrants, disperse unlawful assemblies, prevent cognizable offences and investigate them. Regulation 33 of the Police Regulations of Bengal 1943 requires courtesy, decorum and tolerance, particularly towards women and children, and prohibits rudeness, harshness and unnecessary interference.

Yet, police are seen taking written undertakings from musicians not to perform, stopping people in shorts from boarding metro rail, forcing couples in parks to do squats while holding their ears and baton-charging university students while declaring, “The police are the kings of the people.” 

Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed recently stated that police members involved in indiscipline, unprofessional conduct or criminal activities would face prosecution under existing laws alongside departmental action. The assurance is welcome, but its implementation must be visible. According to media reports, many innocent people are being implicated through “moral policing” or abuse of power by police members. Are exemplary actions being taken against those responsible?

Public outrage against the police after the 2024 mass uprising reflects years of accumulated resentment, not merely the actions of a few officers during the July Uprising. Police reform became a major demand following the ousting of the Hasina government, including from within the force. Yet, while the uniform has changed, the laws and character of the force remain largely unchanged. Public trust has not returned; fear and resentment continue to grow.