When drafting the Constitution of Bangladesh, the framers envisioned an independent, democratic nation — one where the declaration of a state of emergency outside the constitutional framework would never be necessary. Consequently, the original 1972 Constitution made no provision for declaring a state of emergency.
However, reality proved harsher. The post-independence period was marked by political instability, economic crises, weak state institutions, and deteriorating law and order. These challenges demonstrated the need for a legal mechanism to take emergency measures in extraordinary circumstances, alongside democratic governance.
Table of Contents
Constitutional Amendment and Inclusion of Emergency Provisions
In response to this reality, the Constitution was amended in 1973 through the Second Amendment Act, which introduced provisions for declaring a state of emergency. This amendment added the “Ninth Schedule,” including Articles 181(k), 181(ka), and 181(ga), empowering the President to declare a state of emergency during crises threatening national security or public order.
Historical Dates of States of Emergency in Bangladesh
Since its independence, Bangladesh has declared a state of emergency on five occasions. Each declaration was driven by political unrest, opposition movements, military interventions, or security crises. The table below summarises these events:
| Date | Context & Background | Key Outcome |
| 28 December 1974 | Post-Liberation War, Bangladesh faced severe food shortages, inflation, political instability, and corruption, leading the Awami League government to impose emergency rule to restore state control. | Emergency declared to restore law and order amid crisis. |
| 30 May 1981 | Following the assassination of President Ziaur Rahman during a failed military coup in Chittagong, President Justice Abdus Sattar declared emergency to maintain governance and security. | Emergency used to stabilise administration during chaos. |
| 27 November 1987 | Ongoing opposition-led strikes and political agitation under President Ershad’s rule resulted in a breakdown of law and order. Widespread protests led by Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia intensified tensions. | Emergency declared to suppress dissent and maintain control. |
| 27 November 1990 | Near the end of Ershad’s regime, simultaneous student movements and opposition alliance campaigns created severe political conflict. The emergency was declared, but Ershad resigned within weeks, leading to a caretaker government. | Emergency marked regime’s final days before resignation. |
| 11 January 2007 | Known as the “1/11 Emergency,” this was the most controversial and prolonged emergency in Bangladesh’s history. It followed disputed national elections in late 2006, political deadlock, and military-backed intervention. President Iajuddin Ahmed resigned, and a military-supported caretaker government was installed. The emergency lasted nearly two years, during which numerous political leaders were arrested, anti-corruption drives intensified, and constitutional reforms were proposed. | Longest emergency, significantly impacting Bangladesh’s political landscape. |
Analysis and Reflection
The declaration of a state of emergency in Bangladesh has consistently marked periods of acute crisis. These states of emergency have been invoked either to safeguard national security, quell political violence, or manage power imbalances.
Though the constitutional amendment provides legal authority for emergencies, the use of such powers has been subject to both domestic and international scrutiny. Critics argue that states of emergency often curtail democratic freedoms, restrict civil liberties, and concentrate power disproportionately.
In a democracy, the declaration of a state of emergency is an exceptionally sensitive measure. It inherently limits certain democratic rights, which makes the protection of democratic institutions, the rule of law, and political culture vital to preventing such crises.
Emergency Powers in Democracies
Globally, many democratic countries include provisions for states of emergency in their constitutions, recognising that extraordinary situations may demand extraordinary measures. However, international human rights standards stress that such measures must be proportionate, time-bound, and subject to judicial or parliamentary oversight to prevent abuse.
For example:
- India: Has declared a state of emergency three times since independence, most controversially in 1975 under Indira Gandhi, which suspended many democratic rights.
- United Kingdom: Does not have a formal emergency constitution clause but uses specific laws to address crises, always under parliamentary control.
- France: Has a constitutional provision allowing emergency rule, but requires parliamentary approval and regular review.
Bangladesh’s experience reflects the delicate balance democracies must strike between security and liberty, particularly in transitional societies facing internal and external pressures.