ARTICLE TEXT

For many years, sexual harassment was a daily reality for women in Bangladesh’s offices, factories, universities and schools, yet the law had no name for it. The Penal Code dealt with assault and with insulting the modesty of a woman, but there was no definition of sexual harassment, no duty on employers or institutions to prevent it, and no procedure for complaints. In Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association v Government of Bangladesh, the High Court Division filled that gap itself.

The Background

The Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association (BNWLA) filed Writ Petition No. 5916 of 2008 as public interest litigation. It pointed to reports of widespread harassment in workplaces and educational institutions, and argued that the absence of any legal framework violated women’s fundamental rights. Advocate Fawzia Karim Firoze argued the case for BNWLA. Hearings ran from October 2008 to March 2009.

The Issues

The court had to decide whether the state’s failure to provide protection against sexual harassment violated the Constitution, and if so, whether the court could lay down rules to fill the gap until Parliament acted.

The Decision

On 14 May 2009, a Division Bench of Syed Mahmud Hossain J and Quamrul Islam Siddiqui J delivered judgment, with Syed Mahmud Hossain J writing. The court held that the rights to equality before the law (Article 27), non-discrimination on grounds of sex (Article 28), equality of opportunity in public employment (Article 29) and the protection of law (Article 31) require effective protection against sexual harassment.

The court drew on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which Bangladesh has ratified. It also relied on the Indian Supreme Court’s 1997 decision in Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, where Indian judges had faced exactly the same legislative vacuum and responded by issuing guidelines.

The Guidelines

The judgment set out detailed guidelines for all workplaces and educational institutions, public and private. The key elements are as follows.

First, a broad definition of sexual harassment. It includes unwelcome physical contact and advances, sexually coloured remarks, demands for sexual favours, showing pornography, and harassment by letters, telephone calls, text messages and email, as well as stalking and threats.

Second, a duty to prevent. Employers and heads of institutions must take effective steps to prevent harassment, raise awareness and create a safe environment.

Third, a complaint mechanism. Every workplace and educational institution must establish a Complaint Committee of at least five members, the majority of them women, headed by a woman where possible. At least two members should come from outside the organisation, preferably from organisations working on gender and sexual abuse. The committee must receive complaints, hold inquiries within fixed time limits, protect the complainant’s identity, and recommend action to the authority.

Fourth, binding force. The court declared that the guidelines are law under Articles 111 and 112 of the Constitution and must be strictly observed until adequate legislation is made.

The Long Wait for Legislation

Compliance was uneven. Many institutions never formed complaint committees, and studies repeatedly found that survivors struggled to be heard. Legislation came slowly. In November 2025, an amendment to the Bangladesh Labour Act introduced the first statutory definition of sexual harassment in employment law and made committees mandatory in workplaces covered by that Act. In the same month, Bangladesh ratified ILO Convention 190 on violence and harassment in the world of work. A general law covering all workplaces and educational institutions has been under discussion since.

Why It Matters

The BNWLA case is one of the clearest examples of the Supreme Court acting as a temporary lawmaker to protect fundamental rights. It shows how Bangladeshi courts use international treaties, even unincorporated ones, to interpret constitutional rights, and how judicial ideas travel across South Asia: Vishaka in Delhi became BNWLA in Dhaka. For practitioners, the guidelines remain the reference point for any complaint of harassment in an institution not yet covered by statute. For students, the case raises a lasting question of constitutional theory: how far should courts go in filling gaps that the legislature has left open?

Sources

1. BNWLA v Government of Bangladesh, judgment (PDF): https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b3108bbe74940194b83f30f/t/5bc59c468165f5b951fc29bd/1539677259461/Bangladesh+Supreme+Court+decision+re+sexual+harassment+guidelines.pdf
2. BD Law Digest, Bangladesh Labour Act amendment 2025: https://bdlawdigest.org/bangladesh-labour-act-amendment-2025.html
3. The Daily Star, Why sexual harassment survivors still struggle to be heard in Bangladesh: https://www.thedailystar.net/slow-reads/big-picture/news/why-sexual-harassment-survivors-still-struggle-be-heard-bangladesh-4153986