According to the 1993 Paris Principles of the United Nations, the national human rights commission in each country is an independent monitoring and investigative institution. Its tasks include overseeing state power, investigating allegations of human rights violations, and holding the government accountable. In essence, it acts as a moral control mechanism within the state. However, Bangladesh's experience raises different questions.
Over the past decade and a half, serious allegations such as enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, communal and ethnic violence, and torture by security forces have repeatedly come to the fore. Yet, the role of the National Human Rights Commission in such cases has rarely been visible. In many instances, the commission's activities have been limited to receiving complaints and sending letters to the relevant ministries; investigation or inquiry-based activities were negligible. Moreover, there are questions about the transparency of these processes. As a result, the human rights commission turned into a 'toothless'' or 'paper' institution, with spineless leadership.
History of the Human Rights Commission in Bangladesh
A vigorous discussion to establish the National Human Rights Commission in Bangladesh began in the mid-1990s. The process gained momentum after the caretaker government assumed responsibility on 11 January 2007. Under that government, the ''National Human Rights Commission Ordinance, 2007'' was promulgated on 1 September 2008. The ''National Human Rights Commission Act, 2009'' was passed in the ninth national parliament on 4 July 2009. The commission operated under this law from 2009 to 2024, yet there's much talk about its limitations and inefficacy.
The situation took a new turn following political changes in 2024. On 7 November of that year, an interim government abolished the commission. Then, a new 'Draft National Human Rights Commission Ordinance, 2025' was published on 13 September 2025. It was gazetted on 9 November, with a revised ordinance published on 8 December. No commission existed during this entire period.
The new ordinance introduced some structural changes, shortening the investigation period to three months, bringing all commission members into a full-time structure, granting some freedom in budget management, and providing for the online publication of investigation reports.
Additionally, the ordinance includes the representation of women and indigenous peoples, with some additions related to children's rights.
However, the effectiveness of these changes largely depends on the commission's jurisdiction and actual power. Especially, matters related to enforced disappearances must remain within the commission's purview to ensure effective and independent oversight of law enforcement agencies.
Still, the question remains—will these reforms genuinely make the commission ''independent', 'capable', and 'effective'? There is also a clear international context to this. Currently, Bangladesh’s national human rights commission stands at 'Category B', meaning it has not yet met the full standards of the Paris Principles.
As a result, the commission does not gain the full right to speak independently at the UN Human Rights Council and other international forums and is deprived of participation in decision-making or voting rights.
To stand as a strong and credible institution, it is crucial for Bangladesh to upgrade to 'Category A'. This advancement is not merely symbolic—it directly relates to the commission's independence, effectiveness, and international acceptability.
Citizen initiative
In Bangladesh, civil society has been active on human rights issues for a long time. Particularly from the establishment of the human rights commission in 2007-09 and the subsequent decade, various civil society organisations, human rights activists, and research institutions have persistently provided opinions on the commission's independence and effectiveness.
In the 2010s, amid discussions about enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and accountability of security forces, this demand became more vocal. Consistently, since the founding of Citizen's Platform in 2016, regular dialogues, workshops, and consultation meetings have advanced discussions on human rights, communal violence, and the rights of marginalised communities. Notable examples of this continuity include the multiparty dialogues on the proposed draft National Human Rights Commission Ordinance of 2025 and discussions about expectations from the new parliament in 2026. However, the question is, how much impact has this long-standing citizen initiative had on real policy-making?
Real-world experiences suggest, not much. This is because the framework for establishing and operating the human rights commission has long been confined to state bureaucracy and political control. The appointment process for the commission's chairman and members has frequently remained limited to political considerations or individuals from administrative backgrounds. As a result, instead of working independently, the institution has often been controlled by executive power.
Representatives of civil society have repeatedly said the biggest weakness of the human rights commission is its lack of structural independence. In many cases, there was also administrative control over the commission's recruitment of staff, budget management, or investigation processes.
Consequently, the commission’s activities often got stuck in bureaucratic complexities, turning it into a rehabilitation centre for retired bureaucrats.
Even during the interim government's time, similar types of constraints were alleged in drafting the human rights commission ordinance.
According to many human rights activists and civil society organisations, the drafting process was not inclusive, leading to a situation where many citizen-level recommendations were not reflected in the current 'National Human Rights Commission Ordinance, 2025'. This reality presents a significant question: is the human rights commission truly a citizens' institution, or is it just another extension of the state's administrative framework?
What lies ahead
In today’s political reality, the human rights issue has gained new importance. In a statement given on BTV after the 13th National Parliament election held on 12 February 2026, the current Prime Minister stated, "It must be ensured that no one is ever deprived of fundamental human rights." Even opposition political leaders have voiced uncompromising stances on justice and human dignity. However, a fundamental precondition for these commitments to materialise is an effective, independent, and accountable national human rights commission.
The first session of the 13th parliament began on 12 March. According to the constitution, nearly 133 ordinances issued during the past period must be presented and approved in parliament within 30 days. Otherwise, their efficacy will cease. The ordinances have already been sent to a special parliamentary committee for scrutiny, with a deadline of 2 April 2026, for the committee to report.
Therefore, time is extremely limited. In this reality, the question is not just how perfect the law is; but rather will its continuity be maintained. In this reality, three possibilities emerge regarding the future of the National Human Rights Commission Ordinance, 2025.
One. Parliament may approve the ordinance in its current form. This will maintain the law's continuity and sustain the legal basis of the existing commission. However, there will be the risk of continuing the structural weaknesses present in the draft, necessitating amendments later.
Two. Based on the selection committee’s opinion, the ordinance may be approved with amendments. This will create opportunities to address some limitations, although not all key recommendations may be reflected.
Three. The ordinance may not be approved, allowing its efficacy to lapse. In that case, an opportunity for new legislation arises, though the institutional continuity of the human rights commission will fall into uncertainty again.
Which of these three paths will be chosen will determine whether the government remains committed to promises regarding human rights protection or moves towards real change. Will the parliament truly take the initiative to approve the ordinance and establish accountability over the state in safeguarding human rights? Even if the ordinance becomes law, sustained citizen activism will be necessary to enforce it.
#Debapriya Bhattacharya is a Distinguished Fellow at the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD)
#Shourza Talukder is a Senior Research Associate at CPD
*The opinions expressed are those of the authors.
*This article, originally published in Prothom Alo print and online editions, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam