The issue of alcohol control in Bangladesh is an extreme contrast between the rigorous legal laws and the lax and intermittent enforcement.
Although the nation has a very restrictive legal system as stipulated by the Narcotics Control Act, 2018, the situation on the ground shows widespread law-breaking, a tendency to do things informally, and selective application of this law.
Alcohol is a controlled substance under the definition of narcotic drugs in the Act. The legislation strictly governs all activities related to alcohol. Under Section 10(1), no individual shall manufacture, process, transport, import, export, sell, buy, keep, store, or use alcohol unless it is licensed, permitted, or passed.
This provision makes it clear that even consumption as such is not allowed unless approved. In addition, Section 11(1) clearly indicates that no individual can consume alcohol without a permit. For Muslims, the permit must be issued based on a medical prescription from an authorized government physician.
Besides, Section 13 provides that licenses, permits, and passes are issued only under strict conditions and fees, and that violations are subject to restrictions, suspension, and cancellation under Sections 14 to 17.
More to the point, breaches of these conditions are liable to Section 36, which would impose imprisonment and penalties based on the character and the extent of the offense. In brief, the legal system is not merely tough; it is all-inclusive and repressive.
However, even with this strong legal structure, there is a fundamental flaw in its enforcement.
According to the official statistics of the World Health Organization (WHO), the alcohol consumption in Bangladesh is approximately 0.092 liters of pure alcohol per capita/year, which is one of the lowest in the world. This is the figure frequently used to demonstrate that tough laws work.
But in the actual sense, this is not so. It does not mean consumption that goes unregistered, such as homemade brews, contraband, or mass sales from illicit or informal establishments. The very existence of such informal markets directly obviates the regulatory functions of Sections 10 and 11.
Practically, it is commonly seen that most people drink alcohol without securing the necessary permits as required by law, which is a clear violation of Section 11(1).
What is even more alarming is the fact that underage people are in bars and other private places, even though there are legal limitations and licensing conditions that are implied. There is no age check, and compliance is not enforced. It is not a singular problem, but a structural one.
It is also made more difficult by the existence of unlicensed or politically-protected bars and clubs. Even though Section 10(1) clearly forbids the running of any business related to alcohol without a license, a considerable number of establishments still operate beyond the law.
The political patronage claims indicate that not only is the enforcement weak, but also selective. When this happens, then the law becomes biased and hence power relations.
Meanwhile, the government still earns revenue from alcohol through license fees (Section 13), VAT, and import duties. Also, Section 58 clearly permits the government to charge duties on narcotic substances, such as alcohol.
This brings a clear contradiction where the law provides rigid moral and legal limits on alcohol, and at the same time, the state is gaining financially from the sale of alcohol under control.
In case alcohol is considered a substance that is dangerous and should be strictly prohibited, then there is no consistency in revenue generation. On the other hand, when it is a taxable commodity, the existing restrictive framework seems unrealistic.
The other significant problem is in enforcement practices. Sections 20 through 23 of the law grant wide-ranging powers for search and seizure, warrantless searches, and reasonable-suspicion-based arrests. Nevertheless, rather than regular regulatory control, the enforcement is frequently reduced to the periodic police raids.
These actions are reactive rather than preventive and fail to address structural problems such as illegal licensing, underage access, and informal supply chains. Additionally, enforcement appears unequal, raising questions about selective enforcement and possible corruption.
The effects of this dysfunctional system are enormous.
The availability of unregulated alcohol markets exposes people to the risk of unadulterated or hazardous products that occur in the market and become a health hazard to the population. Meanwhile, lax application of the permit laws puts the younger generations in danger of drinking, which is the opposite of the law itself.
Although the Narcotics Control Act, 2018, especially sections 10, 11, 13, 36, and 58, offers a powerful and elaborate legal framework, enforcement is highly ineffective due to selective enforcement. Low consumption, as shown in the official statistics, hides an immense informal market.
Meanwhile, there is no transparency and compliance, as the government continues to enjoy alcohol-related revenue. Alcohol policy in Bangladesh is therefore not a ban, but rather a contradiction: There are strict laws on paper, but enforcement is lax.
Apurba Mogumder is an Advocate, District and Session Judge Court, Dhaka.
