Jewel Hasan Saddam, president of Bagerhat Sadar Upazila Chhatra League, was kept in jail for 11 months on politically motivated charges. After repeated failures to secure bail, combined with severe economic hardship and pressure from fundamentalist groups, his wife, Kaniz Suborna Swarnali, reportedly took her own life along with their infant child. Even after this unbearable tragedy, jail authorities denied Saddam parole to attend the janaza and burial of his wife and child. He was allowed only a few minutes to see them inside Jashore Jail.
This incident represents a grave human rights violation and a case of structural killing. It cannot be treated as routine jail administration. Denying a husband and father the right to attend the funeral of his wife and infant child is not just cruelty. It is a clear violation of established legal procedure and an abuse of the legal process. Parole to attend funerals is a recognised humanitarian practice, even for convicted prisoners, let alone an undertrial. Refusing this right shows a complete disregard for human dignity.
What Does Bangladeshi Law Say?
In Bangladesh, there is a humanitarian legal provision for granting parole or temporary release to a detained or convicted person on the death of a close relative. This power flows mainly from the Jail Code, prison rules, and executive discretion exercised by the government.
Compassionate parole is usually allowed to attend the funeral or perform religious rites, subject to strict conditions such as police escort, limited duration, and security assessment. Although the authority has discretion, refusal without valid reasons may be challenged as arbitrary and inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of human dignity and the right to life under Article 32 of the Constitution of Bangladesh.
Parole or temporary release on compassionate grounds, including the death of a close relative, is governed by several legal provisions in Bangladesh. The primary framework comes from the Prisons Act, 1894, read with the Bangladesh Jail Code (Part I), particularly Rules 661–664, which empower the government to grant parole or temporary release for humanitarian reasons such as attending funerals or performing last rites, subject to conditions and security measures.
In addition, section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 authorizes the government to suspend or remit a sentence at any time, which is often used as the legal basis for parole. Any arbitrary denial of such parole may also be examined in light of Article 32 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including human dignity.
In Bangladesh, the decision to grant or refuse parole to attend the janaza of a wife or son lies primarily with the executive authority, not the jail alone. Legally, responsibility and accountability can be traced as follows:
Legal Position
Under the Prisons Act, 1894 and Rules 661–664 of the Bangladesh Jail Code, jail authorities must place a parole request before the competent authority without delay. The actual power to approve or reject parole is exercised by the Government, usually through the Ministry of Home Affairs or the delegated district authority. Additionally, section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 empowers the government to suspend or remit a sentence temporarily, which forms the legal basis of parole on compassionate grounds.
Legal Consequence
Denial of parole to attend the janaza of a spouse or child, without compelling security reasons, may amount to a violation of Article 32 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which protects the right to life, personal liberty, and human dignity. Such denial can be challenged before the High Court Division under Article 102 as an abuse of discretion and a breach of fundamental rights.
In Bangladesh, the final authority responsible for accepting or rejecting parole is the Government, not the jail authority.
In practice, this power is exercised by the Ministry of Home Affairs, either directly or through delegated executive authorities such as the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, depending on the nature of the case. The jail superintendent’s role is only procedural. He receives the application, verifies facts, and forwards it with comments. He has no legal power to approve or refuse parole.
Therefore, if parole is denied, legal responsibility lies with the executive authority that took the decision or failed to take a decision in time. The jail authority can only be held responsible if it deliberately delayed or failed to forward the parole application.
Propaganda, Victim Blaming, and the Human Cost
Certain inhuman groups are deliberately spreading misinformation on social media, falsely claiming that the family of the imprisoned Jewel Hossain Saddam did not submit any application to allow him to attend the janaza and burial of his wife and child. This claim is not only false but deeply offensive to the suffering family.
In reality, Saddam’s family moved relentlessly with the parole application, going from the Bagerhat district administration to the office of the Jessore District Magistrate. They knocked on every possible door, seeking nothing more than a final farewell between a husband, a father, and his deceased loved ones. However, trapped in bureaucratic delays and the convenient excuse of weekly holidays, no authority took any meaningful or compassionate step to address their plea.
Instead of facilitating a lawful and humane process, the Special Branch of the local police submitted a report claiming that producing Saddam could worsen the law and order situation. On the apprehension that a large number of people might gather, the district administration was advised not to consider the application favourably. Thus, administrative fear and institutional indifference were prioritized over basic human dignity, effectively denying a grieving man his last right to mourn.
This was not an absence of application. It was a conscious failure of the system, now being shamelessly distorted through misinformation to shift responsibility and erase accountability.
Conclusion
The refusal to grant parole in this case stands in stark contrast to both law and long established practice in Bangladesh. The Ministry of Home Affairs itself issued clear guidelines on June 1, 2016, allowing parole for prisoners in the event of the death of close relatives, including parents, spouse, children, and siblings. While such parole is granted through administrative discretion, that discretion is not unlimited and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or without reason.
For decades, Bangladesh has followed the practice of allowing temporary parole for detained or convicted persons, even in highly sensitive cases. In the past, prisoners serving life sentences, including those convicted of crimes against humanity, have been allowed parole to attend janaza ceremonies. Against this background, the denial of parole to Jewel Hasan Saddam to attend the funeral of his wife and child raises serious legal and moral questions.
The apparent failure to implement an existing provision, despite a formal application by the family, undermines the very purpose of the law and violates basic principles of due process and humane administration. Beyond domestic law, the right to dignity in death and mourning is also protected under international human rights standards. Ignoring this obligation does not merely reflect administrative rigidity, but a deeper failure to uphold justice, compassion, and the rule of law.
Writer: Parvez Hashem, Lawyer and Human Rights Defender.
