Lawfulness of corporal punishment

Home

Corporal punishment is lawful in the home. The Penal Code recognises the right of parents to use corporal punishment.

Children have limited protection from violence under the Children Act (1974) and Children Rules (1976), and the Suppression of Violence against Women and Children Act (2000, amended 2003). The Penal Code protects children from severe assault in the sections on “criminal force” and “assault”, where criminal force is defined in article 350: “Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent in order to commit any offence or intending by use of such force to cause or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force to cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to the other.”

At a meeting of the South Asia Forum in July 2006, following on from the regional consultation in 2005 of the UNSG’s Study on Violence against Children, the government made a commitment to prohibition in all settings, including the home.

Schools

There is no explicit prohibition of corporal punishment in schools. Periodic Ministerial directives have advised schools to stop its use, but it continues in practice in the formal education system and in religious madrassas.

Penal system

Corporal punishment is lawful as a sentence for crime. Under the Children Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure (1898) applies. The Code allows for whipping of male offenders (up to 15 stripes for persons under 16 years, up to 30 stripes for older persons). The Constitution (article 35) protects persons who have been arrested or detained from torture, cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment but states that this provision “shall not affect the operation of any existing law which prescribes any punishment or procedure for trial”.

Applicable criminal law is secular in Bangladesh and there is no Islamic court, but corporal punishments have been ordered by unauthorised and illegal fatwas, including lashing and stoning, beating with shoes, and caning, particularly in rural areas. Whipping is a common form of punishment ordered by traditional village mediation councils (shalish).

Corporal punishment is lawful as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions. Under the Children Act, children (under the age of 16 years) convicted of offences against the law and children considered “uncontrollable” by their parents may be sent to a certified institute or an approved home. They may also be sent to prison, and street children and girls engaged in prostitution may be detained in vagrant homes. Rule No. 24 of the Children Rules lists sanctions available for infringements of discipline, including “caning not exceeding ten stripes”. The number of strokes should vary according to the age of the person and nature of the offence, should be inflicted on the buttocks or on the palm of the hand, and a medical officer should be present.

In July 2006, the Minister for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Moudud Ahmed, addressing a national dialogue entitled “Rights of Children: The Role of Lawmakers and Political Leaders”, stated the need for reform of the existing Children Criminal Liability Law, to ban all types of physical punishment to the children (reported in The Financial Express, “All must work together to protect rights of children”, 27 July 2006).

Alternative care

There is no explicit prohibition of corporal punishment in other institutions and forms of childcare. The provisions against violence in the Children Act, Children Rules, the Suppression of Violence against Women and Children Act and the Penal Code (see above) apply.

Workplace

No information.

Prevalence research

A 2004 Save the Children report cites a number of research studies indicating the prevalence of corporal punishment in Bangladesh (Jabeen, F., 2004, Corporal/physical and psychological punishment of girls and boys in South and Central Asia Region, Save the Children Sweden Denmark). These include a survey by Save the Children of more than 2,500 child domestic workers in Dhaka which found that almost two thirds of employers said they were prepared to beat their servants (no reference given). Another reported study involved interviews with children living in slums conducted by UNICEF and the NGO Phulki which revealed that physical and psychological punishment is widely practised in public schools
UNICEF ROSA, 2001, Corporal Punishment in Schools in South Asia, submission to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Day of General Discussion on Violence Against Children 28 September 2001, Kathmandu: UNICEF ROSA.

A study reported in 2005 of 153 children in 16 groups and 109 adults in 13 groups examined behaviours children liked and behaviour children disliked. The children identified a total of 1,043 behaviours that they disliked from people in the immediate family, educational settings and the workplace. Of these, 293 were categorised as physical discipline/punishment, 206 as verbal discipline/punishment, and 66 as other kinds of discipline/punishment, representing the top three disliked behaviours.
Government of Bangladesh/UNICEF/Save the Children Alliance, 2005, Child Abuse Study: Study Report, Draft Version, 25 January 2005

Recommendations by human rights treaty bodies

Committee on the Rights of the Child

“The Committee expresses its profound concern at the prevalence of corporal punishment in schools, as well as at the fact that corporal punishment is still legal and widely practised within the legal system, in educational and other institutions and in the family.

“The Committee recommends that the State party, as a matter of urgency, review existing legislation and explicitly prohibit all forms of corporal punishment in the family, schools and institutions, as well as carry out public education campaigns about the negative consequences of ill-treatment of children, and promote positive, non-violent forms of discipline as an alternative to corporal punishment, particularly at the local level and in traditional communities.

“The Committee acknowledges the efforts made by the State party to improve the juvenile justice system. However, the Committee remains concerned at the limited progress achieved in establishing a functioning juvenile justice system throughout the country. In particular, the Committee is concerned at:
e) the use of caning and whipping as a sentence for juvenile offenders….

“The Committee recommends that the State party ensure the full implementation of juvenile justice standards, in particular articles 37, 39 and 40 of the Convention, and other United Nations standards in the field of juvenile justice…. In particular, the Committee recommends that the State party:
b) ensure that the imposition of the death penalty, of life imprisonment without possibility of release, and of caning and whipping as sanctions for crimes committed by persons while under 18 is explicitly prohibited by law….”
(27 October 2003, CRC/C/15/Add.221, Concluding observations on second report, paras. 43, 44, 77 (e) and 78 (b))

“The Committee is concerned at the lack of appropriate measures to combat and prevent ill-treatment and abuse, including sexual abuse, both within and outside the family, and at the lack of awareness and information on this matter. The persistence of corporal punishment and its acceptance by the society and instances of violence committed by law enforcement officials against abandoned or ‘vagrant’ children are matters of serious concern.

“The Committee recommends that the State party develop public awareness campaigns and measures to provide appropriate assistance to families in carrying out their childrearing responsibilities with a view, inter alia, to preventing domestic violence, prohibiting corporal punishment, and preventing early marriages and other harmful traditional practices.”
(18 June 1997, CRC/C/15/Add.74, Concluding observations on initial report, paras. 18 and 38)