In every constitutional democracy, the judiciary stands as the final sentinel of justice, entrusted not merely with interpreting statutes but with preserving institutional balance, constitutional morality, and public confidence in the rule of law.
Courts derive legitimacy not through coercive authority but through the collective faith of citizens who believe that justice is administered impartially, irrespective of political affiliation, ideology, or proximity to power.
Once that confidence begins to erode, democratic stability itself enters perilous terrain.
Bangladesh today confronts precisely such a moment of profound institutional anxiety following the tumultuous political transition of August 2024.
The dramatic transfer of power at the time, culminating in the installation of the Muhammad Yunus-led interim administration (now replaced by the BNP government), has generated an ongoing national and international debate over judicial neutrality, political accountability, and the future trajectory of democratic governance in the country.
Also Read: I fought alongside Bangladeshi Hindus in 1971 War. Their suffering is a national emergency
Is it really accountability?
Over the past two years, allegations of selective justice have increasingly dominated Bangladesh’s political discourse, and persist even today.
Numerous senior figures associated with the Bangladesh Awami League — including former ministers, lawmakers, and grassroots activists — have reportedly faced investigations, arrests, travel restrictions, and prolonged legal scrutiny. Just this week, 19 leaders and activists of the Awami League were arrested after they allegedly chanted ‘Joy Bangla’ slogans in Chattogram.
Critics contend that cases involving Awami League-linked actors have advanced with remarkable speed, while allegations concerning individuals aligned with the current political dispensation have progressed far more slowly or remained institutionally dormant.
These perceptions have deepened amid reported restrictions on political activities linked to the Awami League throughout 2025 and into 2026.
Civil-society observers, academics, journalists, and digital-rights activists increasingly warn that Bangladesh risks normalising a culture of selective accountability rather than establishing an impartial framework of constitutional justice.
Whether such allegations are wholly accurate is one question. The growing public perception that judicial processes may be influenced by political considerations is another. In democratic societies, perception itself possesses immense constitutional consequence.
Supporters of the present administration strongly reject accusations of partisan justice. They argue that democratic renewal requires legal accountability for alleged abuses committed during previous governments. According to them, no state genuinely committed to reform can exempt former authorities from investigation merely because they once exercised power.
Such arguments carry undeniable constitutional weight. Yet ‘accountability’ loses moral credibility when citizens begin to suspect that the law is being applied asymmetrically.
Bangladesh’s own political history offers repeated warnings regarding the dangers of politicised justice.
Successive administrations across different eras have faced accusations of using investigative agencies, courts, and state institutions against political adversaries.
Instead of dismantling this retaliatory culture, incoming governments have often been accused of merely reversing the direction of institutional hostility while preserving the same machinery of partisan retribution.
Also Read: Why Bangladesh played a big role in BJP’s West Bengal win
Judiciary must restore democratic faith
This current cyclical pattern threatens the very foundations of democratic stability.
If every political transition inaugurates another season of arrests, prosecutions, and selective investigations, courts risk being perceived not as independent constitutional guardians but as extensions of political conflict.
Such perceptions inflict lasting damage upon institutional legitimacy. Public distrust intensifies polarisation, weakens civic cohesion, discourages democratic participation, and undermines international confidence in governance structures and judicial independence.
The stakes are exceptionally high because Bangladesh remains deeply polarised after the political violence and upheaval of 2024.
Critics of that year’s transition continue to question its constitutional legitimacy and frequently allege the influence of external geopolitical interests. Supporters, meanwhile, portray it as a necessary corrective against democratic erosion, excessive concentration of executive power, and institutional decay.
Between these competing narratives, which continue to this day, stands the judiciary — perhaps the only institution capable of restoring public trust through visible impartiality.
That responsibility demands unwavering adherence to one foundational democratic principle: equal protection under law. No citizen should stand above accountability; equally, no citizen should stand beneath the law’s protection.
This principle must apply universally to leaders of the Awami League, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, civil-society actors, business elites, and all other political stakeholders. Equal accountability strengthens constitutional democracy; selective accountability corrodes it from within.
Bangladesh emerged in 1971 through immense sacrifice inspired by aspirations of justice, pluralism, democracy, and constitutional equality.
Those founding ideals cannot flourish within an atmosphere where legal institutions are widely perceived through partisan lenses.
Democratic rapprochement, institutional neutrality, and inclusive political participation are therefore no longer abstract aspirations but urgent national necessities.
Enduring stability cannot be built upon reciprocal vengeance disguised as justice. It can emerge only through a genuinely competitive constitutional order where all major political forces are permitted to function freely under equal law.
The future credibility of Bangladesh’s democracy may ultimately depend not merely upon elections or transfers of power, but upon whether its institutions can convincingly restore public faith that justice belongs equally to every citizen, regardless of ideology, affiliation, or political influence.
Anwar Khan is a political analyst based in Dhaka, Bangladesh. He is also a freedom fighter who took part in the 1971 Liberation War. Views are personal.
(Edited by Asavari Singh)