Dhaka High Court declines petition to ban ISKCON amid rising tensions

The Dhaka High Court on Thursday refused to issue an order banning the activities of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) in Bangladesh. The petition, which accuses ISKCON of being a "radical organisation" threatening national security, was submitted by Supreme Court lawyer Md Monir Uddin. The court cited ongoing government action as sufficient at this stage, as reported by The Daily Star.

The petition alleged ISKCON's involvement in sectarian violence and linked the group to the alleged murder of government lawyer Advocate Saiful Islam Alif during protests. The legal notice, backed by 10 legal professionals, claimed that ISKCON forcibly recruited members, displaced traditional Hindu communities, and attacked religious sites, including mosques.

In response, the court sought an update from the attorney general, who confirmed that three cases had been filed regarding ISKCON-related activities, leading to the arrest of 33 individuals. The bench emphasized the government’s duty to maintain law and order while protecting citizens' lives and properties.

The controversy comes amid rising violence against Bangladesh’s minority Hindu community. Reports from the Foundation for India and Indian Diaspora Studies (FIIDS) revealed over 200 attacks on Hindus and their temples since the fall of Sheikh Hasina's Awami League government in August.

The situation escalated after the arrest of former ISKCON Bangladesh priest Chinmoy Krishna Das Brahmachari on sedition charges earlier this week. His detention, coupled with the rejection of his bail application, triggered widespread protests in Dhaka, Chattogram, and other cities. Das, who had been recently expelled from ISKCON, was accused of inciting unrest.

The petition also demanded that ISKCON be banned under Section 144 in several regions, including Chattogram, Rangpur, and Dinajpur, to prevent further unrest. Despite the controversy, the Dhaka High Court refrained from taking immediate action against the organisation, deferring the matter to the government for further evaluation.