Harmonizing the Penal Code 1860 With International Human Rights Obligations: A Bangladesh Perspective

The conflict between Bangladeshi colonial criminal law and the ongoing obligations of a modern constitution and human rights international treaties is further illustrated by the continued reliance on the Penal Code 1860. However, many provisions of the Penal Code are in conflict with constitutional guarantees and international standards although Bangladesh has ratified several important international human rights instruments including: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Torture), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Other common examples also include the mandatory capital punishment, sedition and criminal defamation, solitary confinement, and gender-specific crimes that reflect a nineteenth-century punitive mentality at odds with contemporary values that favour human dignity, proportionality of punishment to the crime committed, legality and equality. The case for harmonization of the Penal Code with national, constitutional and treaty obligations is good law not withstanding national policy debates. By means of doctrinal analysis, comparative studies between post colonial criminal laws introduced in India and the United Kingdom as well as an examination of decisions by the Bangladesh Supreme Court, the article points out central areas of incompatibility and assesses the limits of judicial interpretation in addressing legislative inertia. This also corroborates that socio-political, administrative and institutional constraints such as competing political priorities, bureaucratic bottlenecks and inadequate institutional capacity have led to reforms being delayed. Taking a cue from the recent experience of criminal law reform in India, we suggest through this article that a phased recodification could be effectively accomplished by relying on expert led legislative scrutiny, evidence based drafting and meaningful stakeholder consultation, institutional capacity building, judicial training and public awareness. It finds that although judicial interpretation has alleviated some human rights problems, only through comprehensive legislative reform can the structural incompatibilities between the Penal Code and the Constitution of Bangladesh as well as international human rights standards be eradicated.

Penal Code 1860; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); Convention against Torture (CAT); Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); Death Penalty; Freedom of Expression; Torture

1. The Penal Code 1860, s 1 (Bangladesh). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ridwanul Hoque, Judicial Activism in Bangladesh: A Golden Mean Approach (Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2011) 45–47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. .Adaptation of Existing Bangladesh Laws Order 1972, Pts I–II. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Status of Ratification: Bangladesh (UN Treaty Collection, accessed 19 February 2026) <https://treaties.un.org> [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. M Jashim Ali Chowdhury, ‘Constitution of Bangladesh and Penal Code, 1860: A Comparative Discussion’ (2023) 14 *Bangladesh Law Digest* 12, 18–20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) v Bangladesh (2010) 62 DLR (HCD) 279 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Ridwanul Hoque, ‘Taking Justice Seriously: Judicial Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh’ (2004) 29 Dhaka University Law Journal 47, 62 (comparing Indian reforms). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. UN HRC, ‘General Comment No 36: Article 6 (Right to Life)’ (2018) CCPR/C/GC/36. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, art 25(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Ibid arts 32, 34–35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh (1997) 17 BLD (AD) 1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. ICCPR (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR), ratified by Bangladesh 6 September 2000. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. ICESCR (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3, ratified 10 June 1972. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. CAT (adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 85, ratified 5 October 1998. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. CRC (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3, ratified 3 August 1990. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. CEDAW (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981) 1249 UNTS 13, ratified 6 November 1984. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. CERD (adopted 21 December 1965, entered into force 4 January 1969) 660 UNTS 195, ratified 12 June 1983. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. <https://indicators.ohchr.org> (accessed 19 February 2026). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. CAT (n 14) arts 1–2; see also Safat Khan v Bangladesh (2015) 67 DLR (HCD) 423. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. ICCPR (n 12) arts 9–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Ibid art 19; Penal Code 1860 (Bangladesh), ss 124A, 499–500. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. ICCPR (n 12) art 26; Chowdhury (n 5) 25. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Hoque (n 2) 120–125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. UN HRC, ‘Concluding Observations: Bangladesh’ (2017) CCPR/C/BGD/CO/1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Constitution of Bangladesh (n 9) art 145A. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Abdul Maqsood v Bangladesh (1993) 45 DLR (AD) 431. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. State v Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs (2012) 64 DLR (HCD) 84. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Hoque (n 7) 55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Penal Code 1860 (Bangladesh), ss 121, 132, 302–303. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. ICCPR (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171, art 6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. UN HRC, ‘General Comment 36: Article 6 (Right to Life)’ (2019) CCPR/C/GC/36 [1]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Amnesty International, Death Sentences and Executions 2020 (2021) 50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Abdul Hakim v State (2010) 62 DLR (AD) 90; State v Md Safikul Islam (2001) 53 DLR (AD) 242. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 (India); Criminal Justice Act 1965 (UK). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. UN HRC, ‘Concluding Observations: Bangladesh’ (2017) CCPR/C/BGD/CO/1 [2]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Ridwanul Hoque, Judicial Activism in Bangladesh: A Golden Mean Approach (Cambridge Scholars 2011) 210–215. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Penal Code 1860 (n 29) ss 319–338. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. CAT (adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 85, art 1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Odhikar, ‘Annual Report 2022’ (2023) 45 <odhikhar.org>. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention) Act 2013 (Bangladesh), s 4; Penal Code 1860 (n 29) s 5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Safat Khan v Bangladesh (2015) 67 DLR (HCD) 423; UN HRC (n 35) [3]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Selmouni v France (1999) 29 EHRR 403 . [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Human Rights Watch, ‘“We Can Arrest Anyone We Want”: Unlawful Arrests and Detention in Bangladesh’ (2022) 28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Sara Hossain, ‘Criminalising Torture in Bangladesh’ (2015) 20 Bangladesh Journal of Law 112, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Penal Code 1860 (n 29) s 124A. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Ibid ss 292, 499–500. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. ICCPR (n 30) arts 19(2)–(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Tofazzal Hossain v Bangladesh (2010) 62 DLR (HCD) 523; R v Oakes 1 SCR 103 (Canada). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Reporters Without Borders, ‘World Press Freedom Index 2023: Bangladesh’ <rsf.org>. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition 535 US 234 (2002). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. UN HRC (n 35) [35–37]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Asif Nazrul, ‘Freedom of Speech in Bangladesh: Penal Code Challenges’ (2018) 23 *Dhaka University Law Journal* 78. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Penal Code 1860 (n 29) s 497. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Ibid ss 155(4), 354, 375. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Ibid s 306. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. CEDAW (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981) 1249 UNTS 13, arts 2, 5; ICCPR (n 30) art 26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. CEDAW Committee, ‘Concluding Observations: Bangladesh’ (2016) CEDAW/C/BGD/CO/8 [4]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Nari-o-Shishu-Nirjatan Daman Ain 2000 (Bangladesh). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Bangladesh Mahila Parishad v Bangladesh (2011) 63 DLR (HCD) 355. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. CEDAW Committee, ‘General Recommendation 35’ (2017) CEDAW/C/GC/35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Penal Code 1860 (n 29) ss 73–74. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. UNGA Res 70/175 (2015), UN Doc A/RES/70/175 (Nelson Mandela Rules), rules 43–44. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. CAT Committee, ‘General Comment 3’ (2018) CAT/C/GC/3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) v Bangladesh* (2003) 55 DLR (HCD) 363. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Human Rights Watch (n 43) 62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494 (India). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Md Ershadul Karim, ‘Solitary Confinement in Bangladesh Prisons’ (2020) 15 Northern University Journal of Law 89. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Penal Code 1860 (n 29) ss 120A, 268, 503. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. ICCPR (n 30) arts 9, 14–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. UN HRC, ‘General Comment 34: Article 19’ (2011) CCPR/C/GC/34 [7–8]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Ain o Salish Kendra, ‘Human Rights in Bangladesh 2023’ (2024) 112. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Manzoor Hasan v Bangladesh (2015) 67 DLR (HCD) 218. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Public Order Act 1986 (UK), s 4A. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Borhan Uddin Khan, ‘Overcriminalisation in the Penal Code 1860’ (2022) 27 Bangladesh Law Review 145, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, arts 25, 102. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) v Bangladesh (2003) 55 DLR (HCD) 363. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Safat Khan v Bangladesh (2015) 67 DLR (HCD) 423 . [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Abdul Quader Mollah v Bangladesh (2013) 65 DLR (AD) 502; see also State v Abdul Mannan (2014) 66 DLR (AD) 299. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh (1997) 17 BLD (AD) . [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Ridwanul Hoque, Judicial Activism in Bangladesh: A Golden Mean Approach (Cambridge Scholars 2011) 156–162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Md Abdul Halim, ‘Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh: Achievements and Challenges’ (2019) 24 Dhaka University Law Journal 210, 225. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248; Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd v Government of Bangladesh (2006) 58 DLR (AD) 80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence UKHL 26 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. S v Makwanyane 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Hoque (n 80) 180–185. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v Bangladesh* (1989) 41 DLR (AD) 165 (8th Amendment case). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

89. Secretary, Ministry of Finance v Md Masdar Hossain* (2000) 52 DLR (AD) 82 . [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

90. Supreme Court of Bangladesh, Annual Report 2023 <supremecourt.gov.bd> 15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

91. Borhan Uddin Khan and Md Shafiqul Islam, ‘Monism, Dualism and the Status of International Law in Bangladesh’ (2017) 22 Bangladesh Journal of Law and Society 45, 58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

92. Borhan Uddin Khan, ‘Limits of Judicial Activism in Penal Reform’ (2021) 26 Northern University Journal of Law 112, 128. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

93. Naim Ahmed, ‘Harmonizing Penal Code with Human Rights: Judicial Role’ (2020) 15 Jagannath University Journal of Law 67, 82. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

94. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (India) (BNS); Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (UK). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

95. Ministry of Home Affairs (India), ‘Comparative Summary: BNS to IPC’ (2024) <bprd.nic.in> 1–5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

96. Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, One Hundred and Forty Sixth Report on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Rajya Sabha Secretariat 2023) paras 1.7 to 1.9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

97. Mahender Singh Manral, 'What was the government's process behind introducing the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill?' The Indian Express (12 August 2023). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

98. BNS ss 4(x), 70(2); see also Ministry of Home Affairs (n 95) 57–58 (mandatory death comparisons). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

99. Joseph Shine v Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 189; CEDAW (n 56) arts 2–5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

100. BNS s 4 (punishments); Rest the Case, ‘IPC vs Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita’ (2025) <restthecase.com> (fines table). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

101. Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684; Penal Code 1860 (Bangladesh), s 268. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

102. PRS Legislative Research, Overview of Criminal Law Reforms (2024). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

103. Law Commission (UK), ‘Legislating the Criminal Code’ (Law Com No 218, 1993). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

104. Criminal Justice Act 1948 (UK), s 64; Suicide Act 1961; Sexual Offences Act 2003, ss 1–4. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

105. Criminal Law Act 1967 (UK), s 6; Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

106. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Simms 2 AC 115; Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s 59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

107. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland AC 789; Criminal Code (Draft) Bill 1989 (UK). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

108. Sentencing Act 2020 (UK), pts 1–3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

109. Ministry of Justice (UK), ‘Sentencing Statistics 2023’ (2024) 12 (imprisonment trends). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

110. Ridwanul Hoque, Judicial Activism in Bangladesh: A Golden Mean Approach* (n 80) 245–250 (comparative reforms). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

111. Code of Criminal Procedure (Second Amendment) Ordinance 2025 (Bangladesh), ss 46A, 167 (arrest safeguards). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

112. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (India), s 152; Penal Code 1860 (Bangladesh), s 124A. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

113. Bangladesh Law Commission, Report on Penal Code Reform (2018) 45–50. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

114. Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 ; Penal Code 1860 (n 111) s 303. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

115. UN HRC, ‘General Comment 36’ (n 31) [2]; Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) v Bangladesh (n 76). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

116. UN Human Rights Council, ‘Report of Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion: David Kaye’ (2016) A/HRC/32/35. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

117. Defamation Act 2013 (UK), s 1; Ain o Salish Kendra, ‘Human Rights Report 2023’ (2024) 89 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

118. Penal Code 1860 (n 111) s 497. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

119. CEDAW (n 56) art 2; Code Pénal (Tunisia), arts 227bis–227quinquies (2017). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

120. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Roadmap for Criminal Justice Reform (UNODC 2016). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

121. Bangladesh Law Commission, Report on Penal Code Reform (Bangladesh Law Commission 2018). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

122. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Criminal Justice Assessment Toolkit (UNODC 2006). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

123. Venice Commission, Rule of Law Checklist (Council of Europe 2016). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

124. OECD, Government at a Glance 2023 (OECD Publishing 2023). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

125. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Model Criminal Code (UNODC). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

126. OECD, OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2021 (OECD Publishing 2021). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

127. World Bank, Improving Criminal Justice Performance (World Bank 2020). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

128. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Criminal Justice Assessment Toolkit (UNODC). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

129. Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, One Hundred and Forty Sixth Report on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Rajya Sabha Secretariat 2023). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

130. Venice Commission, Rule of Law Checklist (Council of Europe 2016). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.