The rule of law is tested not merely by the manner in which a State punishes an individual, but by the fairness of the process through which guilt is established. That distinction has assumed particular significance following reports that Saudi Arabia executed two Bangladeshi nationals in the Makkah region on October 14, 2026 for what its Ministry of Interior described as an “immoral act” inside a mosque. The precise conduct, the evidence presented at trial and the reasoning underlying the sentences have not been made publicly available. Bangladesh has sought the relevant judicial records after stating that its diplomatic mission was not notified of the executions beforehand.
The case warrants careful consideration, particularly because the individuals concerned were foreign nationals whose circumstances remain incompletely understood. It should not be assumed that the executions followed merely from an exchange of affection, as some social media accounts have suggested. Nor should the fairness of the proceedings be pronounced upon without access to the judgments. The absence of this information, however, raises a legitimate question about transparency when the State exercises its most irreversible power.
The religious significance of Makkah must also be acknowledged. Access to the city is restricted to Muslims, and the sanctity of its mosques occupies a central place in Islamic religious life. Those who enter such sacred spaces may reasonably be expected to understand their significance and respect the applicable rules of conduct. Where a person knowingly violates a clearly established prohibition, that knowledge may be relevant to the assessment of culpability. Yet familiarity with religious expectations is not equivalent to knowledge of every applicable criminal provision or the punishment that may follow. Respect for a sacred place and the right to due process are not mutually exclusive principles.
A distinction must therefore be maintained between religious disapproval, a legally established offence and the punishment imposed for that offence. Even where conduct is prohibited, the prosecution must establish the applicable legal basis for punishment, and the accused must be afforded the procedural protections required by law. Knowledge of the religious character of a place cannot substitute for evidence, establish guilt by itself or determine whether a particular sentence is lawful.
For Goans whose relatives work in Saudi Arabia, the implications extend beyond this particular case. Indian citizens who travel abroad for employment become subject to the laws of their host country. Indian citizenship does not confer immunity from foreign criminal law, nor can constitutional protections applicable within India automatically be transplanted into a Saudi courtroom. Nevertheless, the experience of Indian criminal procedure provides a useful comparative framework for understanding the safeguards that make a criminal justice system accountable.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects life and personal liberty through a guarantee that has been interpreted to require fair, just and reasonable procedure. Articles 22 and 39A address important aspects of arrest safeguards and access to legal assistance. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, together with the applicable law of evidence, provides the procedural framework for criminal proceedings in India. These provisions do not govern Saudi courts, but they illustrate the importance attached within Indian law to legal representation, procedural fairness and the opportunity to contest an accusation.
The distinction is especially consequential when a foreign national faces a serious criminal charge. Limited familiarity with the local language, financial constraints, separation from family and difficulty obtaining independent legal advice may compound the vulnerability associated with being prosecuted abroad. These circumstances do not establish that a particular trial was unfair; they explain why effective safeguards are indispensable.
Consular assistance may provide an important line of support. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations addresses communication between detained foreign nationals and their consulates. Where applicable, a detained person must be informed of the right to consular communication, and the consular post must be notified without delay if the detainee requests it. The Convention should not, however, be misrepresented as creating an unconditional requirement for advance consular notification of every execution. The precise obligations and the facts of the individual case must be established before a breach is alleged.
The larger issue is equality before the law. A State is entitled to regulate immigration, maintain public order and enforce its criminal laws. Religious and cultural expectations may also inform its legal framework. Yet the authority to punish should be accompanied by meaningful safeguards against arbitrary or mistaken decisions. The more severe and irreversible the punishment, the greater the importance of transparent proceedings, effective legal representation and appropriate judicial scrutiny.
For Goans working abroad, awareness of local laws is essential. So, too, is an understanding of the legal assistance and consular support that may be available if an arrest occurs. Respect for the host country's laws does not require indifference to the fairness of their enforcement.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Saudi Arabia may enforce its laws within its territory. It is whether the exercise of that authority can be examined through a sufficiently transparent process to establish that justice has been done. The legitimacy of punishment rests not on its severity, but on the fairness with which guilt is determined and the law is applied.
