Article 27 guarantees that all citizens are equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law. It prevents the State from granting unjustified legal privilege or treating legally comparable citizens differently without a constitutionally acceptable basis.
Article 31 provides a separate and broader protection. It requires every citizen, wherever located, to be treated according to law and protects life, liberty, body, reputation and property from legally unauthorised detrimental action.
Article 27 and equal legal status
Article 27 states that all citizens are equal before law and entitled to equal protection of law. It applies to citizens rather than every person.
Equality before law means that public power must operate under law. A minister, official, public body and ordinary citizen are all legally accountable.
Equal protection of law requires the State to apply legal protections consistently to persons who are similarly situated. It is especially relevant where an authority approves one application but rejects a legally comparable application without a valid reason.
Article 27 does not require identical treatment in every situation. Law may distinguish between adults and children, citizens and non-citizens, licensed and unlicensed professionals, or different categories of applicants where the distinction has a legitimate relationship with the purpose of the law.
The Appellate Division has explained that equal protection allows reasonable classification. The classification must not be arbitrary, and persons who are alike in the relevant legal respect should be treated alike.
Articles 28 and 29
Article 28 prohibits the State from discriminating against a citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. It also recognises equal rights of women and men in all spheres of State and public life and permits special provision for women, children and disadvantaged sections of citizens.
Article 29 addresses equality of opportunity in employment or office in the service of the Republic. It prohibits discrimination in public employment on the grounds listed in the provision, subject to constitutional qualifications and permitted measures.
These provisions should not be collapsed into one general principle. Article 27 concerns legal equality, Article 28 addresses specified discrimination and Article 29 focuses on public employment.
Article 31 and lawful treatment
Article 31 protects every citizen wherever the citizen may be, as well as every other person for the time being within Bangladesh. It guarantees protection and treatment in accordance with law.
Unlike an Article 27 claim, an Article 31 claim does not always require comparison with another person. An authority may violate Article 31 by acting without legal power even if it treats everyone else in the same unlawful way.
For example, cancelling a legal status without jurisdiction, imposing a restriction not authorised by legislation or deciding a matter without following mandatory procedure may engage Article 31.
The phrase “wherever he may be” makes Article 31 particularly important for non-resident citizens. The stronger constitutional case arises where the detrimental action is taken by a Bangladeshi authority, even though the citizen is physically outside Bangladesh.
How to establish unequal treatment
A claimant should first identify the legal rule and the persons said to have received different treatment.
The comparison must be legally meaningful. Two applicants are not necessarily comparable merely because they requested the same service. One may have submitted complete documents, applied under a different legal category or been subject to a different version of the law.
Evidence should include written decisions, applicable circulars, official eligibility criteria, dates, qualifications and application records. Rumour that another person received favourable treatment is not enough.
The person should request a written explanation from the authority. The response may establish a lawful distinction, or it may reveal that the authority applied inconsistent or irrelevant criteria.
Constitutional litigation
Articles 27 and 31 may be enforced through Article 102(1), together with Article 44.
The petition must identify the relevant constitutional right and plead the material facts. In Government of Bangladesh v Sontosh Kumar Shaha, the Appellate Division rejected an approach based on conclusory assertions of discrimination. The factual basis for the alleged unequal or unlawful treatment must be established.
A court will examine whether the cases are genuinely comparable, whether the difference in treatment has a lawful basis and whether the authority acted within its statutory power.
Positive measures are not automatically discrimination
The Constitution permits certain special measures. Article 28 expressly allows the State to make special provision in favour of women, children and disadvantaged sections of citizens.
A measure designed to address genuine disadvantage is not automatically invalid merely because it treats groups differently. The constitutional text must be read as a whole.
Unequal treatment and administrative inconsistency
Not every administrative error becomes a constitutional equality violation. A clerical mistake affecting one application may be corrected through an ordinary review or appeal.
However, arbitrary inconsistency may raise a constitutional issue where the authority cannot identify a lawful difference between comparable cases.
An applicant should avoid demanding repetition of an earlier unlawful benefit. Equality generally does not require the State to continue an illegality merely because another person previously received it.
Relevant authorities and remedies
The responsible authority depends on the dispute. It may be a passport office, ministry, public university, local authority, land office, statutory commission or public employer.
The first remedy may be an internal review or statutory appeal. Where a fundamental right has been infringed, Article 102(1) may provide constitutional relief.
Common mistakes
Common mistakes include comparing legally different applicants, relying on incomplete social-media accounts of another case and alleging discrimination without documentary evidence.
Another error is treating every adverse decision as unequal treatment. The Constitution does not guarantee that every application will succeed. It guarantees lawful, non-arbitrary and constitutionally permissible treatment.
Law updated as of 13 July 2026.
Primary sources: Constitution of Bangladesh, Articles 27, 28, 29, 31, 44 and 102; Government of Bangladesh v Sontosh Kumar Shaha, 6 SCOB (AD) 20; Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust and others v Bangladesh and others, Appellate Division judgment dated 5 May 2015.
Legal-information disclaimer: This article provides general legal information, not legal advice. Equality analysis depends on the statutory category, relevant comparators and evidence. Consult a licensed advocate regarding a specific administrative decision.