Bottles in the Air, Chaos Everywhere: How Public Outrage and Political Anger Explode in Bangladesh’s Streets and Courts

Lailatul Ferdus : In a democratic society, symbols matter because a bottle thrown in frustration can speak louder than a hundred speeches. But when these symbols breach legal and moral boundaries, they weaken the very foundation of the consensus they seek to challenge.

When a plastic object was allegedly hurled at a High Court bench during courtroom chaos in 2011, and again when a water bottle was thrown at the Information Adviser during a Jagannath University protest in 2025, two very different settings bore witness to the same volatile mix: frustration, power struggles, political symbolism, and the breach of public order. While both incidents occurred in separate political climates and contexts, the underlying message is disturbingly similar that public spaces, including courts and protest sites, are becoming flashpoints of aggression and symbolic violence, challenging not only social norms but the boundaries of criminal and tort law in Bangladesh.

In both cases, the individuals targeted represented the state. Attacking them symbolically becomes a way to challenge state power. But it also reveals a dangerous breakdown of political dialogue.

Politics, Power, and Public Spaces

The courtroom is a space of symbolic power where justice is dispensed. Any disruption there, especially aimed at judges, challenges not only legal norms but democratic order. The 2011 incident, taking place during an intense political standoff, reflects how institutional authority becomes a battleground for party politics.

Similarly, streets are spaces of popular power. Protests are a democratic right, but when public frustration manifests in aggression, it threatens the legitimacy of the movement. The bottle thrown at Mahfuj Alam may have missed, but it did not fail to convey the depth of dissatisfaction and disillusionment of the people.

From Courtroom to Protest Ground: Two Incidents, One Pattern

In August 2011, pro-BNP-Jamaat lawyers erupted into protest following a High Court observation that BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia’s statement about the Constitution amounted to sedition. Amid the chaos, lawyer and BNP lawmaker Syeda Asifa Ashrafi Papia was accused of throwing a plastic object at judges. Though she denied the act, the courtroom scene was one of disorder, threats to judicial sanctity, and symbolic aggression.

Fast forward to May 2024, at Dhaka’s Kakrail intersection, a water bottle was thrown at Information Adviser Mahfuj Alam during his address to student protesters from Jagannath University.Though he escaped injury, the political implications were profound: frustration directed not just at an individual, but at an entire political system. However, we saw that the student in question tossed the bottle randomly at the tree in a video.

Both incidents, while starkly different in stage and audience, mirrored the growing sentiment of disillusionment among the masses. In both cases, objects were not merely thrown; they were symbols of resistance to perceived injustice, bias, or governmental failure.

What Drives the Protesters?

At the heart of these symbolic attacks lies a mix of political frustration, unmet expectations, and mass disillusionment, i.e. in 2011, pro-BNP lawyers saw the judiciary as politically aligned against them and in 2024, protesting students felt unheard, and the bottle became a metaphor for their anger. These acts may not have been premeditated and planned, but were emotional outbursts grounded in political grievance. Yet, the lack of accountability, both legal and moral, encourages further actions, specifically when such incidents go unpunished, the line between protest and violence blurs.

Legal Lens: Criminal Liability Under the Penal Code

The Penal Code 1860 provides several provisions relevant to these incidents, where these laws affirm that symbolic violence, even when harmless in physical terms, is not beyond the scope of criminal accountability.

Section 336 – Act endangering life or personal safety of others: “Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment… or with fine… or with both.”Throwing any object in a crowded or sensitive space like a courtroom or protest rally fits squarely within this provision, even if no injury occurs. The law punishes the potential for harm, not just the outcome.

Section 352 – Assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation: This section may apply where the object is thrown with the intent to intimidate or provoke.

Section 504 – Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace: Both incidents arguably carry the elements of this offense, especially when directed toward figures of authority, intending to provoke or destabilize.

Civil Liability from Tort Law Perception

Tort law, particularly the doctrine of negligence, provides an alternative lens to evaluate these incidents:

Duty of Care: Both perpetrators had a duty not to act in a way that endangers others, especially in crowded or high-risk environments.

Breach: Throwing an object, especially during heightened tensions, breaches this duty.

Damages: Though physical harm was absent, mental distress, reputational damage, and erosion of institutional respect can constitute intangible injuries.

In developed jurisdictions, tort law increasingly recognizes emotional harm and public humiliation. While underdeveloped in Bangladesh, this field offers an avenue to compensate victims of symbolic violence, which is a rare scenario.

Psychological Toll on the Victims

For the victims in both incidents, the consequences extend beyond momentary danger that Judges, who are expected to be above political bias, are publicly targeted, is creating an unsettling effect on judicial independence, and the Information Adviser, addressing students in good faith, faced public humiliation and was forced to withdraw under threat. Their experiences reflect how symbolic acts of aggression translate into real psychological stress, depression, and a loss of institutional authority.

The courtroom and the street must both be spaces of respectful dissent and institutional integrity and without that balance, Bangladesh risks sliding further into a politics of confrontation, where every protest becomes a provocation, and every disagreement turns dangerous. If democracy is to thrive, both the people and the institutions must rediscover the art of listening without violence and resolving differences without aggression.

Author is a Legal Consultant and Apprentice Lawyer, Dhaka Judge Court.