PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)

The petitioners challenge Sections 155(4) and 146(3) of the Evidence Act, 1872, which permit the introduction of character evidence and questioning of rape complainants regarding their previous sexual history. They contend that these provisions are discriminatory and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 27, 28, 31 and 32 of the Constitution of Bangladesh. Section 155(4) allows evidence of a rape complainant’s allegedly immoral character, while Section 146(3) permits questions intended to undermine a witness’s credibility by attacking their character. Despite repeated campaigns and public demands for legal reform, including the Law Minister’s announcement on 30 June 2021 regarding the repeal of Section 155(4), the petitioners state that the necessary steps were not taken at that time. Public concern was further intensified following the Raintree Hotel case, in which references were made to the complainants’ character and personal history. The petitioners argue that such evidence humiliates and retraumatises rape survivors, undermines their credibility, and creates barriers to obtaining justice. They refer to legal reforms in India and Pakistan and protective measures in Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom to demonstrate the need to restrict the use of character evidence in sexual offence trials. They also rely on the recommendations of the 2018 National Conference on Rape Law Reform, which called for amendments to prohibit such evidence and degrading questions during cross-examination. Accordingly, the petitioners seek a Rule Nisi declaring Sections 155(4) and 146(3) unconstitutional and void for violating fundamental rights and an interim direction requiring the Ministry of Law to establish a committee and submit a report to the Court within three months.