The Necessity of a Sui Generis Anti-Lynching Law in Bangladesh: Filling the Statutory Void
Author
Mohammed Shahjalal
Abstract
Mob lynching in Bangladesh represents a serious violation of the rule of law, involving collective extrajudicial violence often triggered by unsubstantiated rumors and resulting in death or grave injury. This doctrinal and comparative study identifies a critical statutory gap: the lack of specific legislation recognising mob lynching as a distinct aggravated offence. The general provisions of the Penal Code 1860 unlawful assembly (s 141), rioting (ss 146–148), common intention (s 34), and vicarious liability (s 149) are inadequate to address the spontaneity, digital incitement, and communal bias characteristic of contemporary cases. Drawing on black-letter analysis of domestic law and comparisons with jurisdictions sharing colonial legacies (India, South Africa) or similar vigilantism challenges (Indonesia, Nigeria, Kenya, Sri Lanka, Philippines), the paper highlights deficiencies in deterrence, attribution of responsibility, and enforcement. These shortcomings breach constitutional guarantees (Articles 27, 31, 32) and ICCPR obligations (Articles 6, 14), manifesting as constructive state acquiescence and denial of fair trial rights. The study concludes that only a sui generis anti-lynching statute with rebuttable presumptions of collective liability, provisions on incitement, police accountability, and expedited trials can fill this void and restore state legitimacy.
Keywords
Mob Lynching Bangladesh; Sui Generis Legislation; Statutory Void; Collective Criminality; Constructive Acquiescence; Fair Trial Rights; ICCPR Compliance; Vigilante Justice
Full Text:
References
The way Bangladesh deals with crime is not only old-fashioned, but it also doesn't fit with the specific harms of mob lynching. This makes it easier for criminals to get away with their crimes because they don't fear punishment or get enough of it. Being spontaneous, having digital triggers, and having trouble with identity are not general requirements. This is against the law in the US and everywhere else, and it makes people less likely to trust the government. The only way to bring back the state's monopoly on lawful violence, restore the rule of law, and protect basic rights is to pass a special anti-lynching law that looks at group crime, online incitement, state responsibility, and faster justice.