A series of incidents involving allegations of same-sex relationships or conduct at the University of Dhaka has raised a fundamental question about the university’s response: what do its own rules actually say about homosexuality? During late July and August 2026, allegations emerged in several residential halls, leading to students being questioned, handed to police, losing residential seats and, in some cases, being permanently expelled from their halls. Yet an examination of the university’s disciplinary framework published by Prothom Alo on 3 August found that neither the University of Dhaka Order, 1973 nor the residential hall regulations specifically identifies homosexuality as a separate disciplinary offence or prescribes a specific punishment for it.

The issue first attracted significant institutional attention following incidents at Masterda Surya Sen Hall and Dr Muhammad Shahidullah Hall. At Surya Sen Hall, a residential student lost his hall seat after allegations concerning same-sex conduct involving an outside visitor. Days later, two visitors staying in the room of Shahidullah Hall Students’ Union Assistant General Secretary Ibrahim Khalil were accused of similar conduct. A video presenting the visitors as admitting to homosexuality circulated online, although the two men subsequently alleged that their recorded statements had been obtained under pressure. The Shahidullah Hall administration temporarily cancelled Khalil’s residential seat and initiated an investigation. These developments generated public controversy and prompted questions about the precise disciplinary authority under which university officials were responding to allegations concerning consensual same-sex conduct.

Prothom Alo’s examination of the university regulations found an important distinction. The university can investigate allegations involving misconduct, breaches of discipline, disruption of the campus environment and violations of residential hall rules, and it has a range of administrative sanctions available when misconduct is established. These can include warnings, cancellation of residential accommodation and temporary or permanent expulsion from the university. However, according to the newspaper’s review, there was no written provision specifically defining homosexuality itself as a disciplinary offence and no predetermined university punishment specifically prescribed for homosexuality.

The way existing general disciplinary provisions were being interpreted therefore became particularly important. Surya Sen Hall Provost Professor Muhammad Rafiqul Islam told Prothom Alo that university rules allowed a hall provost to expel a student for “moral misconduct” and that, in his interpretation, homosexuality fell within that category. This was an administrative interpretation of a broader disciplinary concept rather than a provision in the university rules expressly identifying homosexuality as misconduct. The distinction is significant because students accused of same-sex conduct were already experiencing serious institutional consequences even though the university’s written regulations did not separately define such conduct as a disciplinary offence.

The controversy expanded further on 12 August, when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Hall permanently cancelled the residential seats of two students following allegations that they were involved in a same-sex relationship. Hall Provost Professor Md Akhteruzzaman confirmed the permanent cancellation of their seats. This represented another instance in which allegations concerning same-sex conduct resulted in significant disciplinary consequences at a residential hall, adding to the earlier incidents at Surya Sen Hall and Shahidullah Hall.

BBC Bangla subsequently examined the broader legal context following the latest Dhaka University incident. Reporting attributed to BBC Bangla noted that allegations of this kind had recently emerged in multiple residential halls at the university, placing renewed attention on both institutional rules and Bangladesh’s criminal law. Bangladesh’s Penal Code continues to contain Section 377, which criminalises certain sexual acts described in the law as intercourse “against the order of nature.” However, the existence of Section 377 does not itself mean that an allegation of homosexuality constitutes proof that a criminal offence has occurred, nor does it create a specific homosexuality-related disciplinary provision within Dhaka University’s own regulations. Criminal liability under the Penal Code is a matter for the judicial process, whereas university disciplinary proceedings operate under the university’s administrative framework.

This distinction is particularly relevant because public discussion surrounding the hall incidents frequently blurred sexual orientation, alleged consensual same-sex conduct, university discipline and criminality. Being gay, lesbian or bisexual, being perceived as having a particular sexual orientation, and being accused of a specific sexual act are not identical factual or legal propositions. Likewise, allegations circulated through social media, photographs, private communications or recorded statements do not by themselves establish that a criminal offence has occurred. Prothom Alo’s analysis therefore provides important institutional context: while university authorities possess broad powers to respond to misconduct and breaches of discipline, the university’s existing written rules did not at that time contain a separate offence or punishment specifically addressing homosexuality.

The University of Dhaka administration itself acknowledged this regulatory gap. Vice-Chancellor Professor ABM Obaidul Islam and Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Administration) Professor Mohammed Almujaddade Alfasane told Prothom Alo that the university was considering developing a formal policy addressing allegations involving homosexuality. The Vice-Chancellor said such matters were then being handled by individual hall administrations and acknowledged that the existing regulations contained no specific disciplinary provision concerning homosexuality. According to Prothom Alo, the university leadership indicated that a dedicated policy would be formulated in the future.

That proposed policy development is significant for LGBTIQ+ rights monitoring. The central issue is not simply whether the university possesses disciplinary authority, but how that authority is exercised when allegations concern actual or perceived sexual orientation or consensual private relationships. The recent cases have involved serious consequences—including public exposure, examination or circulation of private material, removal from residential accommodation, police involvement and the possibility of further disciplinary proceedings. Any future university policy in this area would therefore need to be examined closely in relation to privacy, non-discrimination, procedural fairness, protection from harassment and violence, and students’ right to continue their education safely.

The recent incidents also demonstrate why institutional responses should distinguish between allegations of harm and allegations based primarily on actual or perceived sexual orientation. Universities have legitimate responsibilities to address violence, harassment, coercion and other misconduct and to maintain safe residential environments. However, where an allegation concerns consensual private conduct or a student’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, punitive institutional responses can themselves create risks of outing, stigma, harassment and exclusion from education. The absence of a specific homosexuality-related offence in Dhaka University’s existing disciplinary framework therefore remains an important fact when assessing the administrative actions taken during these cases.

For LGBTIQ+ rights documentation, the reporting by Prothom Alo and BBC Bangla provides an important institutional and legal backdrop to the individual incidents recorded at Dhaka University during this period. The cases should not be viewed only as isolated controversies inside separate residential halls. Together, they raise a broader question about how one of Bangladesh’s largest public universities responds when students or visitors are accused of same-sex relationships or conduct, particularly when its existing written disciplinary framework does not specifically classify homosexuality as an offence. They also make future developments especially important to monitor: whether the university ultimately adopts the proposed policy, what conduct such a policy defines as punishable, what procedural safeguards it provides, and whether it protects students from discrimination and violations of privacy rather than institutionalising punishment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation.