Sultana Jasmine, a 41-year-old land office employee from Naogaon, was picked up by the members of Rapid Action Battalion on March 22 last year. Two days later, she died in custody at Rajshahi Medical College Hospital. At the time of her detention, there were no cases against her. She was later charged under the controversial Digital Security Act (DSA), accused of "siphoning money from job seekers using a Facebook account." 

Jasmine's family has consistently claimed she was tortured in custody. "She died due to torture. She had an injury mark on her head. Before detention, she was perfectly healthy," said her son Shahed Hossain Saikat, a Chittagong University student. 

Following criticisms, the Rab withdrew 11 of its personnel, including a major, from active duty and attached them to the headquarters over the death of Jasmine.

The then Rab director general M Khurshid Hossain had said Jasmine's "murder" tarnished the image of the country, the government and the force.

"The thing was done from the [local] camp; the battalion or the headquarters knew nothing about it," he added.

But nineteen months have passed since the High Court issued a rule questioning the legality of her detention and directing action against the Rab personnel responsible for the incident.

Yet, justice remains elusive due to bureaucratic and judicial delays. 

JUDICIAL LIMBO

Following a writ petition by Supreme Court lawyer Manoj Kumar Bhowmick, the HC bench of Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Muhammad Mahbub Ul Islam issued the rule on April 5 last year.

The government was asked to explain why Jasmine's detention without a case should not be declared illegal and unconstitutional. The court also directed the formation of a high-powered committee to investigate her death. 

The government's investigation report, submitted on August 17 last year, was sharply criticised by the HC bench for being vague and failing to provide a clear account of her arrest or specific findings. The bench called the report unsatisfactory and set November 29 last year for further hearings. 

However, the bench's jurisdiction was reconstituted under routine administrative reshuffling by then Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan, leaving the matter in limbo. Subsequent attempts to bring the case before other HC benches were met with refusals, as both benches cited seniority concerns. 

"After the High Court bench led by Justice Farah Mahbub was reconstituted, I presented the rule before two other High Court benches, led by Justice Md Khasruzzaman and Justice Md Jahangir Hossain. However, they declined to hear the rule, saying that they are junior to Justice Farah Mahbub," said Manoj.

After the fall of the Awami League regime, jurisdiction has been restored to Justice Farah Mahbub's bench, said Barrister Manoj Kumar Bhowmick, the writ petitioner.

"I have already mentioned the matter before the bench for hearing and disposal of the rule. I hope a date will be fixed soon," he told The Daily Star.