A teacher was arrested for discussing distinctions between science and religion. Questions now swirl over the case against him

In a case that has shone a harsh spotlight on the right to free expression in Bangladesh, Hriday Chandra Mondal, a schoolteacher in Munshiganj, is currently in judicial custody following his arrest on charges of 'hurting religious sentiment'.

Masum Billahbdnews24.com
Published : 9 April 2022, 01:06 PM
Updated : 9 April 2022, 01:06 PM

Hriday has been booked for two blasphemy-related offences under the Penal Code, 1860, ostensibly for discussing the distinction between religion and science in the classroom.

However, legal practitioners, academics and rights activists point to a 'procedural impropriety on the part of the police, which puts the case under yet more scrutiny.

The science and mathematics teacher is charged with offences under sections 295 and 295A of the Penal Code.

According to experts, however, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 adds an important caveat: a case under these provisions of the criminal law can only be filed with the approval of the government. There is no indication that the police complied with the provision before recording the case.

This is not the only contention surrounding the controversial case. Lawyers and activists have also questioned the rationale behind denying bail to the teacher, who has been languishing behind bars for more than two weeks.

They believe the detention of a schoolteacher 'without regard for the legal process' may have serious implications for the country down the line as it could embolden communal forces. It also sends a worrying signal to teachers and academicians about the concept of 'academic freedom' in Bangladesh.

Hriday had been teaching mathematics and science at Binodpur Ramkumar High School in Munshiganj Sadar Upazila's Panchasar for the last 21 years.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit is an office assistant of the high school, specifically an electrician named Md Asad. Police registered the case under sections 295 and 295A of the Penal Code, which penalise any act or conduct that 'insults' the religious beliefs and practices of any class of citizens.

However, Supreme Court lawyer Jyotirmoy Barua says that section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that a case under the blasphemy provisions can only be filed with the prior permission of the government or the home ministry -- police do not have the unilateral authority to record such a case.

"Now, the police are saying that only one of the two sections that are being relied on requires the approval of the government. But there is no distinction here. The wording of section 196 is clear that these cases require the prior approval [of the government].”

Prof Mizanur Rahman, the former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, highlighted the need for 'serious deliberation' before invoking these particular provisions. That is why the prior approval of the ministry has been mentioned in the procedural law, according to him.

"The reason for the procedural requirement is to prevent any abuse. The matter should have been stopped in its tracks as soon as these provisions were used without prior approval. The court should have prioritised the citizen's freedom and strived to protect it."

DISCUSSING SCIENCE AND RELIGION

In an unscheduled class on Mar 20, Hriday was discussing topics of science with a group of 10th graders. During the session, some pupils made queries about the relationship between science and religion and secretly recorded the teacher's response on a mobile phone.

According to an audio clip they later shared on social media, Hriday had argued that “religion is a matter of faith” while “science looks at evidence”.

On Mar 22, two days after the recording was made, the school’s headmaster told the media that students and other people from the community were demonstrating outside the school, demanding punishment for Hriday.

The teacher was subsequently suspended by the school. Later that day, he was arrested in connection with a case filed by the school's office assistant Asad.

Hriday had initially applied for bail in the Munshiganj Judicial Magistrate's Court on Mar 28, but his plea was rejected. Later on Apr 4, the District and Sessions Judge's Court also denied him bail.

Hriday's lawyer Ajay Chakraborty said another bail petition will be heard on Sunday and is hopeful that it will be granted this time.

THE CASE AGAINST HRIDAY

According to the case statement, Hriday had 'insulted' Islam and its holy book by 'expressing fictitious opinions' in the classroom and 'hurt religious feelings' in the process.

Section 295, one of the two provisions under which the charges were brought, imposes a prison sentence of up to two years, or a fine, or both, on anyone who either intentionally "destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons" or does so "with the knowledge" that the group in question would likely consider his actions as "an insult to their religion".

Meanwhile, section 295A criminalises words, either spoken or written, or visible representations that are made with the "deliberate and malicious intention" of "outraging" or "insulting" the religious feelings of any class of citizens. An offence under this section is also punishable by two years in prison, or a fine, or both.

Although an accused is entitled to seek bail under section 295, an offence under section 295A is "non-bailable", according to Advocate Ajay.

However, Jyotirmoy says that the prospect of getting bail cannot be completely ruled out even if a particular provision states that bail is not available to an accused under it. "A murder suspect can sometimes be granted bail. It is the sole discretion of the magistrate [whether to grant bail or not]."

"But it is also being argued that if the teacher is granted bail, it could jeopardise his security and he may even be killed. If that is the case then it would be a serious matter. If there is no law and order, then a case should be started against the state.”

WHY DIDN'T THE HEADMASTER SUE?

Jyotirmoy also raised questions about the case's plaintiff, an office assistant, suing as a representative of the school.

“How can an electrician represent a school? If he had been suing in a personal capacity, then there wouldn't have been an issue."

"But why didn't the headmaster file the case himself?"

Local lawmaker Mrinal Kanti Das was also critical of the police's role in the case. He believes the matter has been dragged out this far only because of the law enforcement agency's 'inaction'.

“If a teacher has committed a crime then the headmaster should deal with it. He should have been the plaintiff. How can a school's electrician, who was not present at the scene, be the plaintiff in the case? Why did the police write the FIR of the case? Why did the police then arrest the teacher? The electrician doesn't even know what is written in the case."

"How did the police write down the allegations and get his signature? Who will answer for this?”

The ruling party MP said he was "shocked, embarrassed, hurt and angry" by the actions of the local administration and the police.

"I know he is a victim of a conspiracy. I will not say anything more than that."

bdnews24.com could not reach the case's plaintiff, Asad, for comment on the matter.

However, Munshiganj's Superintendent of Police Abdul Momen defended his force, saying law enforcers had made "every effort" to prevent the incident from escalating.

'DANGEROUS PRECEDENT'

Highlighting the risk of an "abuse of the law", Prof Mizanur, who also teaches law at Dhaka University, lamented the judiciary's refusal to grant bail to Hriday.

"There isn't anything positive about the law on blasphemy. And where there is such a law, there is also a chance that it may be abused."

"When such a law is enforced in the country, the law enforcement agencies try to enforce it but the court also wants to adopt a policy of slow and very careful deliberation. This is because no one wants to draw the ire of the state by enforcing such a law or granting bail. They first want to gauge how the state will react."

Prof Mizanur believes that a teacher's discussions with students in an educational institution, especially in a classroom, must be viewed and explained in the context of expressing free thought. "It should never be viewed from a political lens."

"If a teacher doesn't express any views with malicious intent, then it is better for his academic freedom to be protected. As far as we know, the teacher was trying to explain things from both a religious and a scientific point of view. But his comments were circulated with bad intentions.”

The former chairman of the Human Rights Commission described the manner of Hriday's arrest as "extremely reprehensible". "Those who are taking such steps against a teacher will harass anyone just for the sake of enforcing the law, without thinking about why he said what he did. This should never happen."

"If such an incident is not prevented, it will threaten the practice of academic freedom in the future. If the law is abused in this way, how can a teacher explain anything to a student?”

Human rights watchdog Amnesty International has also called for the immediate and unconditional release of Hriday.

Condemning his arrest, the organisation raised concerns about the 'arbitrary detention' and 'growing criminalisation' of the right to freedom of expression in Bangladesh in a statement.

The teacher's case only exacerbates the situation and represents a direct threat for one of the last bastions of free expression in the country, it said.

“It is outrageous that a teacher finds himself behind bars simply for voicing his opinion while teaching a class. Teachers should be free to discuss ideas and opinions of all kinds without fear of reprisals. Hriday Chandra Mondal is solely for exercising his right to freedom of expression and must be released immediately and unconditionally,” said Smriti Singh, deputy regional director for South Asia at Amnesty International.