Two first-year students of the University of Dhaka were permanently expelled from Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Hall and had their residential seats cancelled on 12 August 2026 after photographs and videos concerning their alleged same-sex relationship were submitted to hall authorities and used in an investigation against them. The students were identified as Afif Hasan Nirob of the Department of Islamic History and Culture and Ariful Haque Shuvo of the Department of Marketing, both from the 2025–26 academic session. The case raises serious concerns about privacy, non-consensual recording and exposure, discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, and due process in university disciplinary proceedings. One of the affected students alleged that the photographs and videos presented as evidence had been recorded by his roommate and provided to the general secretary of the Hall Students’ Union. The two students were subsequently removed from the hall after an administrative investigation concluded that the allegations against them had been substantiated.

The allegations formally came before the hall administration on 2 August. According to published reports, Ahmed Al Sabah, general secretary of the Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Hall Students’ Union, submitted a written complaint to the hall provost seeking an investigation and disciplinary action against the two students. The complaint characterised their alleged relationship as a serious violation of social discipline and stated that photographs and videos existed in support of the allegation. A three-member investigation committee was subsequently constituted by the hall administration. Reports concerning the administrative process said the committee later concluded that the students had been involved in the alleged conduct and treated the matter as contrary to university and hall discipline.

A substantially different perspective emerged from one of the students affected by the proceedings. In comments reported by Rajneete, the student alleged that the photographs and videos used against them had been recorded by his roommate and then provided to Hall Students’ Union General Secretary Ahmed Al Sabah. He further alleged that the roommate had a close relationship with the hall union GS. This account is particularly significant because it raises questions about how material concerning the students’ private lives was obtained before it became the basis of an institutional complaint. The student also said that political claims were subsequently circulated about him, including allegations that he was associated with Chhatra Dal, which he denied, stating that he was not involved with any political organisation. The allegation that a roommate recorded the material should be distinguished from independently established facts about precisely how, when and with what equipment the recording was made; however, the affected student’s account directly challenges any assumption that the photographs and videos were voluntarily created or provided for disciplinary purposes.

The hall administration proceeded with disciplinary action after the investigation. Separate expulsion orders signed by Hall Provost Professor Md Akhteruzzaman were issued on 12 August. Published accounts of the orders state that Afif Hasan Nirob’s residential seat in Room 119(C) and Ariful Haque Shuvo’s seat in Room 112(B) were cancelled and that both students were permanently expelled from Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Hall. Hall Students’ Union General Secretary Ahmed Al Sabah publicly described the allegations as proven and said that the hall authorities had taken the strictest administrative action against the students. He also stated that further action through the university administration was being pursued, including a process that could lead to cancellation of their university studentship. The two students were removed from the hall in the presence of their local guardians.

The disciplinary process, however, also raises questions about whether the students were afforded meaningful opportunities to protect their privacy and defend themselves before severe consequences were imposed. Contemporary reporting shows that photographs and videos concerning their private lives formed part of the complaint and investigation, while one of the affected students specifically alleged that this material originated with his roommate. The publicly available reports reviewed for this documentation do not establish that the university separately investigated whether the recordings were made with the students’ knowledge or consent, how the material was obtained, who had access to it before it reached the Hall Students’ Union, or whether its collection and disclosure itself constituted a violation of the students’ privacy. Instead, the material appears in reporting primarily as evidence used to substantiate allegations concerning their relationship.

The case also illustrates the speed with which information concerning actual or perceived sexual orientation can move from a private setting into institutional proceedings and public exposure. News coverage identified both students by name, department and academic year, while reports described photographs and videos as evidence of homosexuality or a same-sex relationship. One of the students told a news outlet that he was in a state of trauma and did not wish to discuss the matter further. The combination of private material, formal allegations, an institutional investigation, public identification and permanent removal from residential accommodation placed the students under scrutiny not for an allegation of violence or harm against another person, but primarily because of an alleged consensual same-sex relationship.

For LGBTIQ+ rights monitoring, the incident is particularly significant because the disciplinary process cannot be examined separately from the way the evidence was allegedly obtained. If intimate or private photographs and videos were recorded without the knowledge or consent of the individuals concerned and subsequently supplied to others for the purpose of exposing their actual or perceived sexual orientation, the privacy violation itself becomes a central component of the case rather than a peripheral issue. Yet the institutional response documented in contemporary reporting focused on investigating and punishing the students whose private relationship was allegedly depicted, ultimately depriving them of residential accommodation and exposing them to the possibility of further university disciplinary action. The case therefore raises broader concerns about whether educational institutions adequately protect students from non-consensual recording, outing and disclosure of private information, and whether allegations concerning consensual same-sex relationships can result in discriminatory punishment rather than protection of the students whose privacy has been compromised.