23 The legal definition of the term “resident” is unclear; however, the Income-Tax Ordinance, 1984 defines residents and non-residents for the purposes of this Act and, in the absence of other jurisprudence, may provide guidance on this issue. For the purposes of determining tax liability, individuals who spend more than 182 days of a year in Bangladesh are deemed residents (Section 2.55). Despite this, the applicability of “resident of Bangladesh” towards Rohingya remains unclear, since the GoB has the authority to declare that Rohingya do not qualify under the section 10 of the Foreigner’s Act, 1946. Given the inability of Rohingya refugees to return to Myanmar, all Rohingya living in the camps should be categorized as residents of Bangladesh. 24 See e.g.: Hoque, Ridwanul, and MD. Morshed Mahmud Khan, “Judicial Activism and Islamic Family Law: A Socio-Legal Evaluation of Recent Trends in Bangladesh.,” Islamic Law and Society 14, no. 2 (2007): 204–39; Yasmin, Taslima, “Judicial Trends in Child Custody Cases in Bangladesh: Traditional Islamic Law Rules versus Welfare Considerations.,” Asian Journal of Comparative Law 12, no. 2 (December 2017): 233–56. 25 Md. Abu Baker Siddique v. S.M.A. Bakar & others, 38 DLR (AD) (1986) 106. 26 To this effect, the Supreme Court issued a Circular in 2016 instructing police officers to take special care to abide these provisions. 27 The minimum age of criminal responsibility in Bangladesh is nine years of age (Penal Code, Section 83). 28  angladesh and others v. Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and others (Civil Appeal No. 53/2004), Supreme Court of B Bangladesh (Appellate Division, dated 24 May 2016). p 291, Par. X. 29 Ibid. p. 349. 30 Ibid. p. 392 (Par. A). 31 While Section 497 of the CrPC refers to children under the age of 16, this must be read as 18, and irrespective of the nature of the offence, by virtue of Section 52 of the Children Act 2013 (which has an overriding effect over the CrPC, 1898). 32 Most recently in RMMRU v Bangladesh (High Court judgment, dated 31 May 2017), p. 9-10. See also Faustina Pereira v. State, 53 DLR (2001) 414. 33 This requirement has been reiterated in caselaw: Naripokkho & Others v Bangladesh & Others (WP No. 5541/2015), Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division, dated 18 February 2016), p. 37; reported in 25 BLC (2020) 659. 34 “Children” are defined, for the purposes of this Act, as all persons up to the age of 18 (Section 4 of the Children Act 2013). 35 Following this, 11 children under 12 were released from detention while others were released after being granted bail by the Children’s Court: Suo-Moto Rule No. 07 of 2019, Supreme Court High Court Division. 36  angladesh & others v. Bangladesh Legal Aid Service Trust (BLAST) & others (Civil Appeal No. 53/2004), Supreme Court of B Bangladesh (Appellate Division, dated 24 May 2016) p. 290, para. V; reported in 69 DLR (2017) 63. 37 In the High Court ruling in the Kamruzzaman Khab v Bangladesh case, which also disposed of WPs 10482/11 and 4879/12, this was struck down as unconstitutional. However, the law in question has not yet been amended. The operation of the High Court’s judgment continues to be stayed by the Supreme Court, allowing for the Mobile Courts to continue operating under the administration of the Executive Magistrate, as demonstrated by recent Mobile Court orders reported on in the media. 38 In 2017, the Supreme Court’s High Court Division held the law authorizing Mobile Courts to be unconstitutional, ruling that empowering Executive Magistrates with judicial powers was “a frontal attack on the independence of the judiciary and violates the theory of separation of powers.” The judgment is under appeal before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court: “It’s frontal attack on judiciary independence: HC,” The Independent, 8 June 2017. 39 See: Suo-Moto Rule No. 07 of 2019, Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division. 40 M. Rafiqul Islam and S. M. Solaiman, “The New Speedy Trial Law to Maintain Order in Bangladesh: Its Constitutional and Human Rights Implications,” 46 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 79-98. 41 Ibid. 42 Suo Moto Rule No. 7/2019, Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division, dated 11 March 2020), p. 23. 43 RMMRU v Bangladesh, Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division, dated 31 May 2017). 44 The High Court has upheld that these tribunals have broad authority to initiate criminal proceedings, remarking that “the Tribunal has [been] given unfettered power to take cognizance of the offence against an accused assigning cogent reasons.” Md. Nazmul Huda v the State (Criminal Misc. Case No. 25614/2019), Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division, dated 3 February 2019), p. 3; reported in 18 ALR (HCD) 135-136. 45 Arpeeta Shams Mirzan, “The Released Prisoners: Analyzing the Legislative Gaps in the Detention Scheme of the Foreigners in Bangladesh,” National Human Rights Commission, Bangladesh June 2014, p. 18; see also US Department of State, “2020 Trafficking in Persons Report,” (June 2020) 93-97. 46 Restrictions on cellular service in and around the camps were originally framed as (national) security measures aimed at preventing organized crime, especially narcotics trafficking across the Bangladesh-Myanmar border. See “Bangladesh Orders Cellphone Operators to Block Internet Services in Rohingya Camps,” Radio Free Asia, 3 August 2019, accessed 7 November 2020. 47 Al-Masum Molla, Mohammad, “Rohingya Camps: 3G, 4G mobile services to resume soon,” The Daily Star, 28 August 2020. 48 Ridwanul Hoque and Sharowat Shamin, “Bangladesh” in 2017 Global Review of Constitutional Law: I·CONnect-Clough Center, ed. Richard Albert et al. (Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy, 2018), 18–22. 49 The High Court Division has heard a writ petition challenging the legality of Sections 25, 28, 29 and 31 of the Digital Security Act, 2018 as unconstitutional on the grounds that they encroach on the right to freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 39 of the Constitution, and a hearing is pending: “High Court questions two sections of Digital Security Act,” The Business Standard, 24 February 2020. 50 Mohammad Al-Masum Molla, “Rohingya Camps: 3G, 4G mobile services to resume soon,” The Daily Star, 28 August 2020. 51 The mandatory biometric SIM registration scheme was unsuccessfully challenged by a Writ Petition submitted to the High Court District, and the scheme was upheld with the Court’s decision on 12 April, 2016. See “Biometric SIM registration legal,” The Independent Bangladesh, 13 April 2016. 80 BE YOND REFU GE: ADVANCING LEG AL PROTECTIONS FOR ROHINGYA C OMMUNITIES IN BANGL ADESH