Author(s): Md Yeasin Majumder
Paper Details: Volume 3, Issue 2
Citation: IJLSSS 3(2) 11
Page No: 113 – 125
ABSTRACT
The article rigorously analyses current socio-political changes in Bangladesh, emphasising the systematic deterioration of the rule of law and the concerning increase in mob justice following the fall of the Sheikh Hasina government in August 2024. Although the Constitution of Bangladesh nominally endorses the concepts of constitutional supremacy, judicial independence, and legal responsibility, recent occurrences reveal a significant divergence from these objectives. This article looks at how the quality of government and public trust has declined, shown by constitutional rules, important court cases, and recent news, leading to widespread violence outside the law, politically driven legal actions, and the misuse of strict laws like the Special Powers Act 1974.
INTRODUCTION
The Rule of Law is a foundational principle of constitutional governance in Bangladesh, ensuring that all individuals and institutions—including the state itself—are subject to and accountable under the law. This concept aligns closely with the classical doctrine articulated by A.V. Dicey,[1] who identified three core principles: the supremacy of law, the equality of all persons before the law, and the predominance of legal spirit, which involves the protection of individual rights through the courts. These principles are clearly embedded in the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
The Preamble of the Constitution proclaims the objective of establishing a just and democratic society based on the Rule of Law. Article 7 affirms the supremacy of the Constitution, declaring it the supreme law of the land and confirming that all powers in the Republic emanate from the people. Article 27 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law, reflecting Dicey’s principle of legal equality. Article 31 reinforces every individual’s right to be treated in accordance with the law and to enjoy its protection, thereby safeguarding against arbitrary action. Furthermore, Article 111 establishes that the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all subordinate courts, promoting legal certainty, uniformity, and judicial independence—hallmarks of Dicey’s vision of a society governed by the Rule of Law. Together, these constitutional provisions reflect Bangladesh’s strong formal commitment to upholding the Rule of Law in both theory and practice.
However, recent developments in the country have placed these principles under severe strain. Following the collapse of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s 16-year regime on 5th August 2024, triggered by widespread student-led protests, Bangladesh descended into a period of profound political and social instability.[2] The former Prime Minister reportedly fled to neighbouring India, leaving behind a power vacuum and a weakened state apparatus. In response to escalating unrest, an interim government was formed on 8 August 2024, assuming control with the stated aim of restoring stability and governance.[3] However, the interim administration has failed to uphold the Rule of Law and ensure access to justice, thereby further deepening public distrust in state institutions.
In the absence of effective legal mechanisms, the country has witnessed a disturbing surge in mob justice,[4] as disillusioned citizens increasingly resort to taking the law into their own hands.[5] The formal justice system is widely perceived as either dysfunctional or entirely absent, and public confidence in legal institutions has deteriorated rapidly. Violent acts, including extrajudicial punishment, public lynchings, and arbitrary retaliation, have become increasingly common, threatening the core tenets of lawful governance.
This alarming erosion of the legal order has seriously undermined constitutional guarantees, such as equality before the law (Article 27), the right to protection of the law (Article 31), and the right to due process. In many cases, alleged offenders are denied fair trials, while victims are left without meaningful legal remedies or protection. The interim government’s inability to restore the authority of law and deliver justice has created a climate of impunity, fear, and chaos.
This research seeks to explore the dual collapse of institutional legitimacy and public confidence in the legal system. It examines the rise of mob justice, the failures of law enforcement, judicial inertia, and the broader implications for constitutional governance and human rights in Bangladesh. By drawing on constitutional texts, landmark judicial decisions, empirical data, and recent high-profile cases, this study provides a critical analysis of how the breakdown of the rule of law is manifesting in both state and societal conduct. Without urgent and comprehensive reform—grounded in transparency, accountability, and civic engagement—Bangladesh risks descending further into legal nihilism, where neither the courts nor the constitution can serve as guardians of justice.
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND LEGAL COMMITMENT TO THE RULE OF LAW
The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh demonstrates a robust formal dedication to the ideals of the rule of law. It establishes the framework of legal government while also embodying the aspirations of the Bangladeshi populace for a just, democratic, and accountable state. The Constitution, from its preamble to its precise sections, envisions a nation governed by law rather than the caprices of those in authority. The Preamble delineates the fundamental aims of the Republic: democracy, the rule of law, human dignity, and essential rights. It asserts that authority resides with the populace and that the government shall operate in accordance with the desires of its constituents, within a legal framework established to guarantee fairness for all. Article 7 of the Constitution explicitly states that it is the supreme law of the republic. It states that any law that contradicts the Constitution is void to the extent of the conflict. This clause is essential to constitutional supremacy and mandates that all governmental actions, laws, and policies be evaluated according to constitutional norms.
Article 27 ensures that all citizens possess equality before the law and are entitled to equal legal protection. This principle encapsulates Dicey’s concept of legal equality, emphasising that neither wealth, political influence, nor social standing should absolve an individual from legal responsibility. Article 31 guarantees that every citizen is entitled to legal treatment and protection under the law. It asserts that legal security and equity are not privileges but rights provided to all societal members, offering protection against capricious official actions. Article 111 strengthens judicial authority by stipulating that the Supreme Court’s legal determinations are obligatory for all subordinate courts. This guarantees uniformity in legal interpretation, promotes legal clarity, and fortifies judicial independence—an indispensable element of the rule of law.
These provisions collectively establish a comprehensive constitutional framework designed to protect democratic governance, avert power abuses, and maintain the dignity of each citizen. They establish the legal framework for the administration of justice and the exercise of power. However, the disparity between constitutional principles and actual circumstances has grown more pronounced. Notwithstanding the Constitution’s compelling rhetoric, the implementation of these principles is disjointed and irregular. The occurrences subsequent to the disintegration of the Hasina administration revealed the precariousness of the nation’s legal foundations. The interim government’s inability to adhere to legal protocols, avert arbitrary detentions, and safeguard citizens from mob violence illustrates a significant collapse in the enforcement of constitutional protections.
Legal equality, as established in Article 27, has been compromised by selective law enforcement, politically motivated detentions, and the impunity afforded to individuals associated with influential interests. Concurrently, the legal protection guaranteed by Article 31 has become superficial for numerous people, especially those who are poor, marginalised, or politically neutral. Increasingly, individuals face violence or arrest without access to equitable judicial procedures. Furthermore, although Article 111 ostensibly guarantees the obligatory nature of Supreme Court rulings, in fact, court decisions are frequently disregarded or selectively enforced by the executive branch, particularly when they pose political challenges. This undermines the integrity of the judiciary and diminishes public trust in legal institutions.
Essentially, Bangladesh’s constitutional framework provides a robust legal foundation for the rule of law, but its execution has suffered severe undermining. The discrepancy between written obligations and actual governance highlights a legal crisis that can only be resolved by reinstating judicial independence, depoliticising law enforcement, and confirming the Constitution’s supremacy in both its text and intent.
The Rule of Law, as a foundational principle of constitutional governance, has been reinforced through various judicial pronouncements in Bangladesh. One of the most pivotal cases in this regard is Secretary, Ministry of Finance v Masdar Hossain,[6] where the Appellate Division laid down comprehensive guidelines for the separation of the judiciary from the executive. The Court emphasised that judicial independence is a basic feature of the Constitution and a prerequisite for the Rule of Law. This judgment ensured that judicial officers cannot be subordinated to executive control, thereby institutionalising the constitutional mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution. The ruling reaffirmed the doctrine of separation of powers and clarified that an independent judiciary is essential for ensuring legal accountability and protection of fundamental rights.
In Aruna Sen v Government of Bangladesh,[7] the High Court Division declared a case of preventive detention illegal. The Court held that even under emergency powers, the state must act in accordance with legal procedures and respect the fundamental rights of citizens. This decision reaffirmed the idea that the government must not act arbitrarily and that liberty cannot be curtailed without due process. It reflects the judiciary’s role in curbing state excesses and upholding the sanctity of the Constitution. Together, these cases illustrate how the judiciary in Bangladesh has played a critical role in upholding and developing the rule of law and protecting fundamental rights.
MOB JUSTICE: A SYMPTOM OF LEGAL COLLAPSE
The phenomenon of mob justice in Bangladesh represents a significant challenge to the establishment of the rule of law, which often results from a breakdown in public trust in legal institutions. Following the collapse of the Sheikh Hasina regime on 5 August 2024, the country witnessed a surge in vigilante violence, including harassment of women, assaults on political opponents, and attacks on religious establishments. Notably, incidents at Jahangirnagar University and Dhaka University involved the deaths of individuals accused of theft, with “general students” allegedly participating in these acts. These events underscore a breakdown in legal order and highlight the dangers of extrajudicial actions.[8]
The case of Tofazzal Hossain, as reported by The Daily Star in its article “Mob justice is not justice” (27 March 2024),[9] exemplifies this issue. Hossain, a mentally ill man, was brutally killed by a group of students at Dhaka University on the mere suspicion of mobile phone theft. Despite the presence of university security, no effective intervention was made to prevent his death.
This incident reflects a deeper structural crisis: when citizens perceive the legal system as slow, corrupt, or inaccessible, they may resort to extrajudicial means to impose punishment. Such actions are not only unlawful but also reveal the fragility of justice institutions. The recurrence of mob violence in Bangladesh signals a disturbing normalisation of vigilante behaviour, undermining core principles of due process, presumption of innocence, and equal protection under the law.
Experts suggest that such acts of mob justice are often impulsive and lead to miscarriages of justice. Dr. Helal Uddin Ahmed, Associate Professor at the National Institute of Mental Health & Hospital, emphasises the need for societal respect for differing opinions and the promotion of a knowledge-based society to mitigate mob mentality. He asserts that even collective crimes remain crimes, and individuals must be held accountable regardless of group participation.[10]
In addition to mob violence, the rule of law in Bangladesh is further threatened by instances of state overreach and politically motivated misuse of legal instruments. As discussed in an article published in The Financial Express, the country is experiencing a dual crisis: an increase in extrajudicial mob justice and a parallel trend of the state using legal mechanisms for political retaliation.[11] While segments of society resort to vigilantism due to a lack of faith in the justice system, certain authorities are accused of filing baseless cases against former regime members, allegedly with the intent of imprisonment rather than accountability.
The article argues that both developments indicate an erosion of legal norms and institutional integrity, endangering Bangladesh’s already fragile democratic foundations. The interim government has responded by discouraging mob justice and granting military officers magisterial powers to stabilise the situation. However, these measures, though well-intentioned, risk undermining civilian authority and deepening the legal crisis.
This situation exemplifies how the absence of legal certainty, procedural fairness, and checks on executive power can destabilise governance and hinder progress towards a lawful and democratic society. The resolution of these issues requires not only immediate policy interventions but also deep structural reforms aimed at strengthening the judiciary, depoliticising law enforcement, and promoting rule of law principles at all levels of government.
Mohammad Rashed Alam Bhuiyan in New Age; mob justice refers to situations where chaotic crowds bypass legal procedures, taking the law into their own hands to punish accused individuals, often resulting in severe harm or death. This phenomenon has seen a troubling increase, with numerous incidents of harassment, assault, and even murder perpetrated by mobs acting on suspicion or rumour.[12]
Several factors contribute to the rise of mob violence, including the absence of effective law enforcement, public dissatisfaction with the justice system, and a general distrust of legal institutions. Bhuiyan notes that perceptions of police incompetence and corruption, coupled with prolonged legal proceedings, have led citizens to resort to extrajudicial measures. This trend not only undermines the legal framework but also results in tragic consequences, often based on misinformation.[13]
Statistical data underscores the severity of the issue. According to Ain O Salish Kendra, at least 128 individuals were killed in mob violence incidents in 2024, with 96 deaths occurring between August and December. These figures reflect a disturbing escalation and highlight the urgent need for systemic reforms.[14]
Addressing mob justice requires a multifaceted approach. Enhancing the capacity and credibility of law enforcement agencies is paramount to restoring public confidence. Implementing community policing, establishing rapid response teams, and increasing surveillance can deter vigilante actions. Additionally, public awareness campaigns emphasising the legal consequences of mob violence and promoting legal literacy are essential. Holding perpetrators of mob justice accountable through the legal system reinforces the principle that justice must be administered through established legal channels. Furthermore, addressing underlying socioeconomic issues such as unemployment and poverty can mitigate factors that contribute to public frustration and lawlessness.[15]
THE SPECIAL POWERS ACT 1974
The Special Powers Act, 1974 (SPA) of Bangladesh, particularly Sections 3(1) and 3(2),[16] grants the government and certain magistrates the authority to detain individuals preventively to avert actions deemed prejudicial to the state. Section 3(1), the government may order the detention of any person if it is satisfied that such detention is necessary to prevent the individual from committing a prejudicial act. Section 3(2) empowers District Magistrates or Additional District Magistrates to issue detention orders if they believe it necessary to prevent an individual from committing specific prejudicial acts as defined in the Act. The term “prejudicial act” encompasses actions that threaten national security, public order, or the economic interests of the state, among others.
The arrest of Bangladeshi model and Miss Earth Bangladesh 2020 winner Meghna Alam has sparked widespread public outrage and condemnation from legal experts and human rights organisations.[17] Meghna was detained under the Special Powers Act 1974 and sent to jail for 30 days following a late-night court hearing, after being picked up from her home in Dhaka without a warrant.[18]
The Dhaka Metropolitan Police claimed she was detained for spreading false information about an “important individual” and allegedly attempting to damage international relations.[19] However, Meghna’s father stated she was involved in a relationship with a foreign diplomat and had ended it after discovering he was already married. It is alleged that the diplomat may have used his influence through the home ministry to prompt Meghna’s arrest.[20]
Concerns have been raised over the lack of due process, the use of force, and the secretive nature of the detention. A video of the police forcibly entering her home and seizing her phone circulated on social media, but was later removed.
Legal professionals, including Supreme Court lawyers, and organisations like Amnesty International, have criticised the use of a draconian law and called for her immediate release or for her to be charged with a recognisable criminal offence. They argue that the Special Powers Act has been historically misused to arbitrarily detain individuals without sufficient judicial oversight, breaching international human rights standards.[21]
Law advisor of the interim government of the Bangladesh also stated that her process of arrested was not proper under the current law.[22]
There are also questions about the legality of holding court sessions at night and concerns that this case sets a dangerous precedent for using state power to serve the interests of the influential. Meghna is currently being held at Kashimpur Jail in Gazipur, with legal experts urging for police reform and the repeal of the Special Powers Act.
SOCIETAL RESPONSE AND THE CALL FOR REFORM
The concerning increase in mob justice throughout Bangladesh highlights a profound psychological and societal problem, exacerbated by institutional failure. Experts in mental health and sociology assert that group frustration, disinformation, and a diminished sense of individual responsibility frequently trigger mob conduct. Dr. Helal Uddin Ahmed,[23] Associate Professor at the National Institute of Mental Health & Hospital, emphasises that mob violence proliferates in communities where legal recourse is perceived as unattainable or useless. He asserts that persons engulfed in groupthink frequently forfeit their moral constraints and engage in actions they would never undertake independently. This disinhibition, along with emotional excitement and a lack of immediate legal repercussions, incites aggressive extrajudicial actions.
To mitigate this psychological susceptibility, there is an imperative requirement for civic education that is centred on the rule of law, due process, and democratic citizenship. Initiatives for public awareness must challenge the prevalent notion that violence can achieve justice. Educational institutions ought to incorporate legal literacy and civic duty into their curricula to cultivate future generations that uphold legal norms and processes. Bangladesh can only mitigate mob justice and reinstate public compliance with the legal system by fostering a knowledge-based society that prioritises constitutional rights and institutional responsibility.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REBUILDING PUBLIC TRUST AND LEGAL INTEGRITY IN BANGLADESH
Reinstating confidence in the rule of law necessitates a thorough and enduring reform plan that tackles institutional deficiencies while fostering accountability, openness, and civic engagement. It is necessary to take into account the subsequent key measures:
REFORMATION AND DEPOLITICISATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES:
Rebuilding public faith in law enforcement necessitates the depoliticisation of police units and the reinstatement of their operational autonomy. Political intervention has significantly undermined the legitimacy and credibility of law enforcement in Bangladesh. Thorough reforms must prioritise the recruitment of officers based on merit; implement rigorous training in human rights and legal protocols; and establish both internal and external accountability mechanisms to examine wrongdoing. Creating independent police complaints commissions will improve transparency and guarantee equitable resolution of public objections. Moreover, law enforcement organisations ought to actively collaborate with local communities throughoutreach and trust-building initiatives.
ENHANCEMENT OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND CAPACITY
The rule of law necessitates a fully independent judiciary. Such independence ensures that justice is administered fairly and without bias, enabling the courts to act as a check on the powers of the executive and legislative branches. Only then can citizens have confidence in the legal system and its ability to uphold their rights and liberties. Political involvement and contempt for judicial rulings in Bangladesh have eroded public trust in the legal system. Reforms must be initiated by ensuring tenure security, appropriate compensation, and administrative autonomy for judges. The government must uphold and implement judicial rulings, irrespective of any political inconvenience. Additionally, measures must be implemented to enhance the judiciary’s operational efficiency, particularly in addressing the substantial backlog of cases that hinders the timely administration of justice. Investing in judicial training, modern court facilities, and digital case management tools can expedite proceedings and enhance access to justice, especially for marginalised populations. We must make efforts to ensure diversity and inclusivity in judicial appointments.
REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION OF OPPRESSIVE STATUTES
Bangladesh’s continued reliance on outdated and repressive legislation poses a significant threat to human rights and the rule of law, as exemplified by the Special Powers Act of 1974. This Act has repeatedly been used to justify arbitrary arrests, preventive detention, and the suppression of political dissent. To align with international legal standards, the government must either repeal such legislation or undertake substantial reforms to ensure compliance with constitutional guarantees and human rights obligations.
LEGAL AWARENESS
Public legal awareness is a powerful tool for empowering citizens and strengthening democratic governance. In Bangladesh, a significant portion of the population remains unaware of their legal rights or the mechanisms available to seek justice, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, and state overreach. To address this, comprehensive public awareness campaigns should be launched through television, radio, social media, schools, and religious institutions. These initiatives must aim to educate citizens about the Constitution, their fundamental rights, and the legal avenues available for redress. When individuals understand their rights and the lawful means to assert them, they are more likely to challenge injustice, demand accountability from authorities, and participate meaningfully in civic life. Enhancing legal awareness not only safeguards individual liberties but also promotes a culture of constitutionalism and the rule of law.
POLITICAL AGREEMENT ON LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORM
Achieving meaningful and lasting legal and institutional reform in Bangladesh hinges on strong political consensus. Historically, reform efforts have often been derailed by partisan rivalry and short-term political interests. To break this cycle, all major political parties must commit to a shared vision that prioritises the rule of law over political expediency. This includes safeguarding judicial independence, ensuring impartial and professional law enforcement, and refraining from using state institutions for political retribution. The establishment of bipartisan parliamentary committees or reform commissions could serve as effective mechanisms to depoliticise the reform process and provide continuity across political transitions. Moreover, the active engagement of civil society, academic experts, and independent media can foster transparency, support public dialogue, and strengthen accountability. Political agreement not only enhances the legitimacy of reform initiatives but also ensures their sustainability. Without such consensus, progress risks being undone with every change in government, undermining public confidence in democratic governance.
CONCLUSION
The present legal and socio-political situation in Bangladesh represents a constitutional and moral crisis. The significant loss of the rule of law after the Hasina government collapsed has revealed profound weaknesses in the justice system, the instability of democratic institutions, and the concerning increase of mob justice. This disintegration is not a fleeting occurrence but rather the culmination of decades of systematic negligence, politicised police agencies, and widespread public disillusionment with legal institutions. This analysis illustrates that the substantial restoration of the rule of law necessitates more than political declarations; it demands extensive structural improvements. These include strengthening judicial independence, depoliticising law enforcement, enhancing public legal awareness, and cultivating a culture of constitutionalism. It is essential to reaffirm accountability—not only for perpetrators of mob violence but also for state actors who misuse their power. In the absence of decisive and inclusive measures, Bangladesh faces the peril of descending into a condition where justice becomes neither impartial nor vocal. The necessity for reform is clearly evident.
[1] A V. Dicey’s Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885, Macmillan and Co.),http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1714/0125_Bk.pdf [accessed 2 April 2025].
[2] Syed Munir Khasru, ’Six Months In, the Interim Government of Bangladesh Stands at a Critical Crossroads’ The Daily Star (Dhaka, 4 March 2025) https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/news/six-months-the-interim-government-bangladesh-stands-critical-crossroads-3818606 accessed 4 April 2025. Six Months In, the Interim Government of Bangladesh Stands at a Critical Crossroads’ The Daily Star (Dhaka, 4 March 2025) https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/news/six-months-the-interim-government-bangladesh-stands-critical-crossroads-3818606 accessed 4 April 2025.
[3] Sohini Bose, and Anasua Basu Ray Chaudhury, ’Interim Government: The Faces of Change in Bangladesh’ Observer Research Foundation (New Delhi, 28 March 2025) https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/interim-government-the-faces-of-change-in-bangladesh accessed 4 April 2025.
[4] Rabiya Ahsan Era, ‘Revolutionary Ideals vs. Mob Justice: A Call for Legal Integrity’ (NILS Bangladesh, 2 October 2024) https://nilsbangladesh.org/revolutionary-ideals-vs-mob-justice-a-call-for-legal-integrity/ accessed 4 April 2025.
[5] Brian Ikejiaku and Jasmine Osabutey, ‘The Effects of Mob Justice on the Rule of Law and Democratisation in Africa: A Case Study of Ghana’ (2022) 6(2) Peace Human Rights Governance 247 https://phrg.padovauniversitypress.it/system/files/papers/PHRG-2022-2-5.pdf accessed 4 April 2025.
[6] (1999) 52 DLR (AD) 82.
[7] (1975) 27 DLR (HCD) 122.
[8] TBS Report, ‘Inside the Uncontrollable Rise of “Mob Justice”‘ (The Business Standard, 20 September 2024) https://www.tbsnews.net/features/panorama/inside-uncontrollable-rise-mob-justice-945651 [accessed 4 April 2025].
[9] Editorial, ‘Mob Justice is Not Justice’ (The Daily Star, 27 March 2024) https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/news/mob-justice-not-justice-3842481 [accessed 4 April 2025].
[10] TBS Report, ‘Inside the Uncontrollable Rise of “Mob Justice”‘ (The Business Standard, 20 September 2024) https://www.tbsnews.net/features/panorama/inside-uncontrollable-rise-mob-justice-945651 [accessed 4 April 2025].
[11] Editorial, ‘Combating the Crises of Mob Justice and State Overreach’ (The Financial Express, 25 September 2024) https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/views/reviews/combating-the-crises-of-mob-justice-and-state-overreach [accessed 4 April 2025].
[12] Mohammad Rashed Alam Bhuiyan, ‘Mob Justice is No Justice’ (New Age, 12 March 2025) https://www.newagebd.net/post/opinion/259879/mob-justice-is-no-justice [accessed 4 April 2025]. New Age
[13] Ibid, note (12).
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Special Powers Act 1974 (Bangladesh) s 3(1), s 3(2), available at: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-462/section-11067.html [accessed 14 April 2025].
[17] Staff Correspondent, ‘Model Meghna Alam’s arrest sparks outcry’ (The Daily Star, 12 April 2025) https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/news/model-meghna-alams-arrest-sparks-outcry-3868881 [accessed 14 April 2025].
[18] Staff Reporter, ‘Miss Earth Bangladesh Meghna Alam sent to jail’ (Jago News, 11 April 2025) https://www.jagonews24.com/en/entertainment/news/81839 [accessed 14 April 2025].
[19] Staff Correspondent, ‘Model Meghna Alam’s arrest sparks outcry’ (The Daily Star, 12 April 2025) https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/news/model-meghna-alams-arrest-sparks-outcry-3868881 [accessed 14 April 2025].
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] ’Process of arresting Meghna Alam was not proper: Asif Nazrul’ (Prothom Alo, 13 April 2025) https://en.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/crime-and-law/9pynmiuhot [accessed 14 April 2025].
[23] TBS Report, ‘Inside the Uncontrollable Rise of “Mob Justice”‘ (The Business Standard, 20 September 2024) https://www.tbsnews.net/features/panorama/inside-uncontrollable-rise-mob-justice-945651 [accessed 4 April 2025].