When Haya (not real name) applied for an e-passport recently, the form allowed her to provide either her parents’ names or those of a legal guardian. She listed her guardian. But during biometric enrolment, officials demanded the names of her biological parents. Weeks turned into months, and she found herself trapped in bureaucratic limbo as her opportunity to study abroad was slipping away.
Her story is far from unique. Across Bangladesh, obtaining a birth certificate, National Identity Card (NID) or passport, the trifecta of documents essential for daily life and travel, is often a puzzle where the pieces don’t fit.
The Citizenship Act, 1951 provides that a person born in Bangladesh is a citizen of the country. As a corollary, every citizen is entitled to obtain key identity documents: a passport under the Bangladesh Passport Rules, 1974, framed pursuant to the Bangladesh Passport Order, 1973; a birth certificate under the Birth and Death Registration Act, 2004; and, if eligible to vote, an NID under the National Identity Registration Act, 2010. While the law does not always require both parents’ names, administrative forms, government circulars and digital systems frequently insist on them. The result is frustration, delay, and exclusion for many citizens.
The problem becomes clearer when each document is examined individually. For e-passports, adults can apply using a guardian’s name instead of parental details. In practice, however, applications are often halted during biometric enrolment if the biological parents’ names are missing, as in Haya’s case. Applicants using guardians’ names must also obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the home ministry, an additional hurdle not imposed on those able to provide parental information.
For NIDs, there is no option to include a guardian’s name in the application form, nor is there space for it on the card itself. As a result, some individuals who are not raised by their parents have had “jana nei” (not known) recorded in place of parental names.
Birth certificates present similar challenges. Application forms and the certificate don’t accommodate legal guardians’ names. Although the law allows limited flexibility when parental details are unavailable, in practice, this often leads to inconsistent and improvised entries. These documents don’t operate in isolation. To obtain an adult passport, personal information must typically match the NID; a child’s passport must align with the birth certificate, and NID applications generally rely on birth registration data. A single discrepancy, especially in parental information, can cascade across systems, blocking access to multiple services. For individuals without known parents, this creates overwhelming barriers.
The impact is deeply unequal. Children raised by single mothers, individuals with other guardians than parents, orphans, abandoned children, and those born as a result of sexual violence are disproportionately affected. For them, this is more than an administrative inconvenience. Without a birth certificate, children may be unable to enrol in school. Without an NID, adults face barriers to opening bank accounts, accessing employment, paying taxes, or voting. Without a passport, opportunities for travel and education abroad are effectively closed.
In March 2024, rights organisations Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), Bangladesh Mahila Parishad, and Naripokkho filed a writ petition challenging these barriers. They contended that recognition of citizenship should not depend on naming parents, and that mandatory parental disclosure violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution, including equality before the law, equal protection of law, non-discrimination, the right to life (encompassing education, healthcare, and work), and freedom of movement. The petition also argued that such requirements are inconsistent with Bangladesh’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which prohibits discrimination based on sex and marital status, and adversely affect children unable to identify their biological parents, contrary to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
On March 10, 2024, the High Court issued a rule nisi asking the government to explain why it should not amend relevant forms and circulars to allow the inclusion of a guardian’s name as an alternative to that of a father or mother. The court also questioned the continued use of derogatory terms such as “jana nei” and directed the government to report on steps taken to harmonise all three identity systems, while enabling correction of existing records. Yet, more than two years later, there has been no meaningful progress, leaving applicants like Haya stuck in bureaucratic uncertainty.
The principle is not new. In 2023, the High Court allowed students to use the name of a father, mother, or legal guardian on SSC and HSC examination forms. Extending this approach to identity documents is both logical and necessary. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of NID correction applications remain pending, many regarding errors in parental information. Delays stretch for months or even years, costing people jobs, educational opportunities, and access to essential services.
While proposals by the interim government for a unified civil registration commission could streamline administration, without removing exclusionary requirements of biological parents’ details or placing extra hurdles for those naming legal guardians, such reforms will do little to resolve the problem. The solution is straightforward: shift from a lineage-based to a citizenship-based identity system. At the same time, processes and databases across agencies must be harmonised to ensure consistency and accessibility.
Haya eventually obtained her passport after months of struggle. But her NID still does not recognise her legal guardian. Many others remain blocked by rigid administrative practices that go beyond what the law requires. Recognition of citizenship should not hinge on naming a parent. Until Bangladesh’s identity systems reflect that principle, some Bangladeshis will continue to ask whether they are truly equal before the law.
Barrister Priya Ahsan Chowdhury is advocate at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and associate at Dr Kamal Hossain and Associates.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
