Bangladesh – High Court Judgment on Sexual Harassment, Forced Veiling

https://wunrn.wpengine.com

 

Via Lawyer Sara Hossain, who practices in the
High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.

 

 

Advocate Salahuddin Dolon v
Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 4495 of 2009

 

Summary: The High Court today directed the
Ministry of Education to take immediate steps to implement the Guidelines on
Sexual Harassment declared earlier in BNWLA v Bangladesh, and to ensure
that no woman working in any educational institution, public or private is
forced to wear a veil or cover her head, and may exercise her personal choice
whether or not to do so. [1][1]The Court also observed that Section 27A of the Government
Servants Discipline and Conduct Rules 1979, must be read alongside these
Guidelines, to ensure that public officials are held to account for any acts of
sexual harassment.

 

The
Court observed “It is the personal
choice of a woman to wear a veil. If any person tries to compel a woman to wear
a veil against her consent or will that amounts to a violation of her
fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution”.

 

These
directions were given in a writ petition filed by Adv. Salahuddin Dolon,
following a news report that the Headmistress of a Primary School in Kurigram
had been verbally abused in sexually coloured remarks during a public meeting
of her school by a public official, an Upazilla Education Officer, because she
had not covered her head in his presence. 
During the course of the hearing, the Education Officer had apologized
in person to the Headmistress in Court. The Court also observed that this
Officer may be transferred from his current area of operations.

 

The
judgment was passed by a Division Bench comprising Mr Justice Syed Mahmud
Hossain and Ms. Justice Syed Afsar Jahan. 
Advocate Dolon appeared for himself. Ms Sara Hossain represented the
Bangladesh Legal and Services and Trust as co petitioner. Mr Razik Al Jalil,
DAG appeared for the state.

 

Background: On 28.6.2009, the High Court issued a
Rule on the Government (Ministries of Education and Home Affairs) and the
Upazilla Education Officer to show cause as to why the Ministry of Education
should not be directed to take appropriate action against the said Education
officer for uttering highly derogatory remarks against the Headmistress of a
school.

 

The
Rule was issued in a writ petition filed by Advocate Salahuddin Dolon,
following publication of a report in the Daily Shomokal. The report alleged
that a Thana Education Officer had verbally abused the Headmistress of a
Primary School in Kurigram on the ground that she had failed to wear a veil.
The Court directed the education authorities to submit a report to the court.
In the report it was stated that the Education Officer had made an “inadvertent
error”. The Court thereupon called the Education Officer to appear before the
Court and on doing so, he apologized in person to the headmistress who was also
present in court.

 

On
4.5.2009 BLAST through its Deputy Director (Legal Aid) Farida Yeasmin filed an
application for addition of party as co-petitioner. The application was allowed
and BLAST was added as co petitioner no. 2.

 

Adv.
Salahuddin Dolon submitted that the alleged statements made by the respondent
no. 3 were highly objectionable and that the Court should frame a guideline so
that women in different educational institutions would be able to work freely
and with dignity.

 

Ms
Hossain, for BLAST submitted that the actions of the Education Officer
constituted sexual harassment and were a clear instance of gender-based
discrimination perpetrated by a state official. She further submitted that the
imposition of a dress code on women amounts to a violation of fundamental
rights to equality, the right to be treated in accordance with law, and to
personal liberty, freedom of expression, as well as freedom of religion Such
actions warranted specific measures being taken by the state to implement its
constitutional  obligations to prohibit
gender discrimination and ensure equality of opportunity in employment for men
and women. She prayed for the existing conduct and discipline rules for
government servants to be read together with the sexual harassment guidelines
and effectively implemented.

 

The
Court observed “It is the personal
choice of a woman to wear a veil . If any person tries to compel a woman to
wear a veil against her consent or will that amounts to a violation of her
fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution. It is her personal
choice to do so or not to do so.  In
Bangladesh there has been no uniform practice of veiling or head covering among
women. In recent years there have been reported instances of attempts to
forcibly impose this not only by private persons but also by government
officials. The instant case demonstrates the harassment of women and girls in
public spaces, schools, educations and places of higher education both public
and private.”

 

Existing Rules on Sexual
Harassment and Discipline of Government Officers

 

·        
The High Court’s Guidelines on Prevention of Sexual
Harassment earlier laid down on 14.5.2009 in Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association v Government of
Bangladesh (2009) 14 Bangladesh Law Chronicles directed the Government
to enact legislation to address the issue immediately pending which the
Guidelines would have the force of law.

·        
Guidelines, Rule 4(i)(c) Sexually coloured verbal
representation; Rule 4(1)(f) Sexually coloured remark or gesture;

·        
Government Servants Discipline and Conduct Rules 1979,
Rule 27A. Conduct
towards female colleagues- No Government servant shall
use any language or behave with his female colleagues in any manner which is
improper and goes against the official decorum and dignity of female colleagues.