The potential repeal of the Human Rights Commission Ordinance has triggered growing concern among legal and political observers, who argue that such a move could significantly weaken the effectiveness of the July Indemnity and Protection Ordinance. 

Analysts warn that the two legal instruments are closely interconnected, and removing one may undermine the purpose of the other.

The July Indemnity Ordinance was introduced to address incidents arising from clashes between police and civilians during a politically turbulent period in July. 

Under its provisions, such encounters are divided into two categories: “political resistance” and “ordinary criminal offenses.” 

Cases classified as political resistance are deemed settled, effectively granting immunity to those involved. 

In contrast, incidents labeled as criminal offenses—particularly those involving the killing of police personnel—remain subject to investigation and prosecution.

At the heart of the issue lies the question of classification.

Determining whether a specific incident constitutes political resistance or a criminal act is a sensitive and consequential decision. 

When the ordinance was conceived, this responsibility was expected to fall on an independent and empowered Human Rights Commission, ensuring neutrality and credibility in the process.

However, the possible repeal of the Human Rights Commission Ordinance would reinstate the Human Rights Act of 2009, widely viewed as limited in scope and authority. 

Under that framework, the commission lacks the jurisdiction to investigate allegations involving law enforcement agencies. 

This limitation effectively removes an independent oversight mechanism from cases where it is most critically needed.

Legal experts caution that, in the absence of a strong and autonomous commission, the responsibility for classification could shift to law enforcement agencies themselves. 

Such an arrangement presents a clear conflict of interest, as the same institutions involved in the incidents would also determine their legal characterization. 

Critics argue that this undermines transparency and raises the risk of selective or biased decision-making.

The issue was highlighted in parliament by Comilla-4 Member of Parliament Hasnat Abdullah, who opposed the passage of the July Indemnity Ordinance without first ensuring the enactment of the Human Rights Ordinance. 

He emphasized the intrinsic link between the two and warned that proceeding without a functional oversight body could create legal ambiguities. 

Despite these concerns, the government has moved toward repealing the Human Rights Ordinance.

Observers note that the implications of this decision could extend beyond legal technicalities. The absence of an independent classification mechanism may leave room for the reinterpretation of past and future incidents. 

This, in turn, could expose activists, coordinators, and opposition figures to potential legal and political pressure, depending on how cases are categorized.

More broadly, the development underscores a recurring challenge in governance: balancing state authority with institutional accountability. 

Without a robust human rights framework in place, the enforcement of indemnity provisions risks becoming contingent on political discretion rather than objective legal standards.

In this context, analysts argue that the enactment of a strong Human Rights Commission law would have ensured a more balanced approach. 

By placing oversight in the hands of an independent body, it could have reduced concerns over misuse and strengthened public confidence in the legal process.

—