## Facts

- A newspaper report described an incident at a government primary school in Kurigram in which an Upazila Primary Education Officer directed female teachers to wear a veil/head-cover while at school.
- When teachers protested, the officer singled out the headmistress for not covering her head and allegedly used sexually derogatory language toward her in a public meeting; the headmistress reportedly fainted.
- A Supreme Court advocate filed a public interest writ; a legal aid organization joined as co-petitioner.
- The High Court issued a rule to show cause why action should not be taken against the officer for derogatory remarks and related misconduct.
- During proceedings, the officer appeared and tendered an in-court apology to the headmistress.
- Education authorities submitted an investigation report that characterized the officer’s conduct as a “mistake,” which the court scrutinized.
- The matter arose shortly after the High Court had issued workplace and educational-institution guidelines addressing sexual harassment.

## Issues

1. Whether compelling female teachers to wear a veil/head-cover and using sexually derogatory remarks constitutes sexual harassment under the High Court’s operative guidelines.
2. Whether forcing or attempting to force veiling/head-covering in educational institutions violates women’s fundamental rights.
3. What duties the Government and education authorities have to implement anti-harassment guidelines and apply public-service discipline rules to officials accused of sexual harassment.

## Decision

- The court made the rule absolute in part and issued binding directions to the Government, particularly the Ministry of Education.
- The court held that wearing a veil is a woman’s personal choice; compulsion to veil or cover the head against her will violates fundamental rights.
- The court treated sexually coloured verbal abuse and derogatory remarks by a public official in an educational setting as sexual harassment within the governing guidelines.
- The court ordered immediate implementation of the sexual-harassment guidelines in all educational institutions, public and private.
- The court directed education authorities to ensure that no woman in educational institutions is forced to veil or cover her head.
- The court instructed that the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1979 (including the relevant disciplinary provision) must be applied consistently with the sexual-harassment guidelines to enable disciplinary proceedings against government servants for sexual harassment.
- The court recorded the officer’s apology and indicated that administrative measures, including possible transfer, could be taken.

## Legal Principles

- A woman’s decision to wear or not wear a veil/head-cover is protected as an element of personal autonomy; official coercion to veil violates constitutional fundamental rights.
- Sexually coloured remarks and sexually derogatory verbal abuse in workplaces and educational institutions constitute sexual harassment, including when committed by public officials exercising authority.
- The state has an affirmative duty to implement and enforce judicially declared sexual-harassment standards across institutions, and not merely address incidents on an ad hoc basis.
- Public-service disciplinary rules must be construed and applied to give effect to anti-harassment standards so that misconduct amounting to sexual harassment triggers formal accountability measures.

## Conclusion

The High Court treated coerced veiling and sexually derogatory verbal abuse by an education official as constitutional and disciplinary violations, required systemwide enforcement of sexual-harassment guidelines in educational institutions, and directed that public-service discipline mechanisms be used to hold offending officials accountable.


Advocate Md. Salahuddin Dolon v. Gov’t of Bangl., Writ Petition No. 4495 (Bangl. H.C. Div. Apr. 8, 2010)