Enactment of laws and issuance of ordinances to ensure indemnity is not unprecedented in Bangladesh. However, the question remains whether such laws and ordinances have, in reality, been able to guarantee immunity.
Despite the explicit constitutional validity of indemnity laws under Article 46 of the Constitution, various indemnity ordinances and laws issued at different times have subsequently been declared unlawful by the courts.
In order to avoid future legal challenges, certain provisions of the indemnity ordinance relating to the July uprising should have been revised or refined before it was converted into law.At the first sitting of the first session of the 13th Jatiya Sangsad (national parliament) on 12 March, a total of 133 ordinances promulgated during the tenure of the interim government were placed before Parliament. A special committee comprising members of both the ruling and opposition parties was formed to scrutinise these ordinances and submit a report. On 2 April, the committee recommended that 98 of these ordinances be presented to Parliament as bills in their original form.
Among these 98 ordinances is the July Mass Uprising (Protection and Determination of Liability) Ordinance, 2026, which concerns protection for participants in the July uprising. If enacted into law, it would result in the withdrawal of all civil and criminal cases filed against those who took part in the July mass uprising. Moreover, no new lawsuits or complaints could be initiated against them. In effect, even if criminal offences were committed by participants during July–August (in 2024), they would be granted legal protection under this law.
This is not the first instance of granting of indemnity through legislation or ordinances in Bangladesh. However, the question remains: have such laws, enacted in different contexts, truly ensured long-term immunity for those concerned? How effective have indemnity laws been historically, particularly in the face of political transitions?
