Bangladesh does not have legislation that specifically addresses the rights of refugees to access healthcare or recourse mechanisms for healthcare-related issues.  However, the existing legal framework of Bangladesh provides some remedies for judicial and administrative remedies relating to access to healthcare that can be accessed by the refugees and asylum seekers. 

The Constitution of People’s Republic of Bangladesh does not explicitly address about access to healthcare services neither for its citizens nor for the refugees or asylum seekers. The Constitution states about improvement of public health in its Fundamental Principles of State Policy which is judicially not enforceable and only guides the state towards attaining the goals set in this part through progressive realization. Though the article mentions nothing about whether the improvement would be for citizens or for everyone. The right to health has been considered as a fundamental right through the broad interpretation of article 32 of the Constitution that guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.1 The Judiciary of the country has been active in liberal interpretation to include the right to health within constitutional protection. "The right to life under Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution not only means protection of life and limbs necessary for full enjoyment of life, but also includes, among other things, protection of health...." the High Court Division ruled in the Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh case.2 In another case of Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh3 the court prioritized right to health of the patients and ordered doctors to end their strike as such disruption had paralyzed medical services nationwide. So, there are constitutional remedies available regarding access to healthcare which may in theory be sought also by asylum-seekers and refugees in the country in case of violation of right to life.4 At one instance, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh entertained a writ petition relating to Rohingya refugees where the court upheld the principle of non-refoulement and ordered the release of Rohingya refugees and handover them to proper authorities for settlement at refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar.5 This case is an example that the remedy for violation of the rights of the refugees or asylum seekers can be sought in the Supreme Court of the country. 

According to the Penal Code's Sections 304A,6 336,7 337,8 and 3389, hospital administration, nurses, doctors, and others involved in healthcare negligence may face criminal charges. The victims of the offences mentioned above can file a suit in the criminal courts to seek remedies as the Penal Code has not restricted its application to citizens only.  

In case of administrative remedies, a particular code of conduct is prescribed by the Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council Act of 2010. Section 23 of the Act allows for the cancellation of a licensed physician's license or registration as a practitioner if they breach the code of conduct. 

As these acts have not put a bar in accessing these remedies to the non-citizens, theoretically the refugees and asylum seekers can seek these administrative and judicial remedies. However, considering their present situation in the country, they face many challenges in accessing courts due to lack of legal status and identity cards, and many other barriers due to limited resources and limited knowledge. 

• 1

  Article 32, The Constitution of People’s Republic of Bangladesh

• 2

  Dr. M. Farooque v. Bangladesh, 48 D.L.R. 438 (HCD 1996) (Bangladesh)

• 3

  Writ Petition No. 1783/1994 (Doctor’s strike case)

• 4

  Article 102, The Constitution of People’s Republic of Bangladesh 

• 5

  Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit (RMMRU) v. Government of Bangladesh (Writ Petition no. 10504 of 2016), Supreme Court, 31 May 2017 

• 6

  Section 304A, The Penal Code, 1860 states, ”Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3[five] years, or with fine, or with both.”

• 7

  Ibid, s. 336 states, ”Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty taka, or with both.”

• 8

  Ibid, s. 337 states, ” Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred taka, or with both.”

• 9

  Ibid, s. 338 states, ”Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to two years, or with fine which may extend to 2[five thousand taka], or with both.”