|| Md. Mukhlesur Rahman: The existing quota system for allocating residential plots by the Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK), the Capital Development Authority, needs a comprehensive review. Reserving public land for particular professional, occupational, or influential groups raises serious questions about equality, fairness, and the equitable distribution of state resources. When the Constitution of Bangladesh guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law, preferential access to public land based merely on professional identity, administrative position, or political status requires strong justification.RAJUK plots are not personal gifts or rewards for professional achievement. They represent limited public land resources entrusted to a state institution for planned urban development and housing. Their allocation should therefore be governed by fairness, transparency, accountability, and equal opportunity. A system that reserves substantial portions of public land for selected occupational groups risks undermining these principles and restricting the opportunities available to ordinary citizens.Constitutional Equality and the Limits of Preferential TreatmentThe Constitution of Bangladesh establishes equality and social justice as fundamental principles of the state. Article 27 guarantees that all citizens are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law. Article 19(1) requires the state to endeavour to ensure equality of opportunity for all citizens, while Article 19(2) calls for effective measures to remove social and economic inequalities and ensure the equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities.Article 28(1) prohibits discrimination against citizens on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. These provisions collectively reflect the constitutional commitment to equal citizenship and non-discriminatory governance.However, constitutional equality does not necessarily mean that everyone must receive identical treatment under all circumstances. Article 28(4) expressly permits the state to make special provisions in favour of women, children, and disadvantaged sections of society to ensure their advancement. Such affirmative measures are intended to address genuine historical, social, and economic disadvantages and promote substantive equality.The important distinction, therefore, is between legitimate affirmative action and unjustified preferential treatment.Special housing assistance for genuinely disadvantaged, homeless, or economically vulnerable citizens may be justified on grounds of social justice. Similarly, targeted assistance for constitutionally recognised disadvantaged groups may be appropriate when supported by objective and verifiable criteria.However, professional identity, administrative rank, political influence, or occupational status alone cannot automatically establish a constitutional entitlement to preferential access to state-owned land. Being a government official, judge, member of parliament, journalist, doctor, engineer, businessperson, or other professional does not, by itself, demonstrate a special housing need or justify receiving public land ahead of other eligible citizens.Article 21(2) further recognises the responsibility of every person in the service of the Republic to strive at all times to serve the people. Public service should be understood as a responsibility towards citizens, not as an automatic entitlement to additional personal privileges from public resources.It is important to clarify that the Constitution does not automatically invalidate every quota or preferential allocation. Rather, each category must have a legitimate public purpose, reasonable justification, objective eligibility criteria, and consistency with constitutional principles. Any quota lacking such justification deserves reconsideration and appropriate legal scrutiny.The fundamental principle should be that public resources are distributed fairly, and any departure from equal access must be justified by genuine public interest rather than professional privilege or political influence.Quotas and Discrimination in RAJUK’s Allocation PolicyThe RAJUK Residential Plot Allocation Rules, published on 28 April 2024, provide for reserving specified numbers of residential plots for different social and professional categories. These include freedom fighters, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, judges, members of parliament, military and civilian government employees, journalists, teachers, doctors, engineers, businesspeople, industrialists, lawyers, artists, writers, and sports personalities, among others. Specific quotas are also provided for officials of RAJUK and the relevant ministry.The inclusion of such diverse categories raises an important question: which groups genuinely require special housing assistance, and which benefit primarily from professional or institutional privileges?The housing needs of a financially disadvantaged and homeless citizen cannot reasonably be equated with those of a wealthy businessperson or a senior government official who already enjoys substantial employment-related benefits.If state-supported housing is intended to promote social justice, eligibility should be determined primarily by financial circumstances, existing housing conditions, genuine residential needs, and previous receipt of government housing benefits. Professional identity should not be the principal basis for granting preferential access to public land.The government must distinguish between recognising professional contributions to society and distributing scarce public resources. These are two fundamentally different matters.Ending Special Allocation Opportunities for the InfluentialAllegations of irregularities, favouritism, and abuse of authority in RAJUK plot allocations have emerged at different times. Observations in a special court judgment published on 27 November 2025 also highlighted irregularities in the allocation processes of RAJUK and the Ministry of Housing and Public Works. The judgment included directions concerning the review of previous allocations, forensic audits, and an end to allocations based on special recommendations.Such developments highlight the risks associated with discretionary powers and privileged access in the distribution of public resources. When allocation processes depend excessively on recommendations, influence, or administrative discretion, the possibility of favouritism and abuse increases.Rather than making generalised allegations against particular professions or institutions, the allocation system itself must be reformed to minimise opportunities for irregularities.In particular, allocations based on recommendations from senior government officials, political connections, administrative rank, or personal relationships must be eliminated. Holding an important public position may deserve recognition, but public land should not be treated as a reward for occupying such a position.State resources must serve the public interest, not the interests of privileged individuals or groups.What Should a New Allocation System Look Like?RAJUK needs a uniform, transparent, and accountable residential plot allocation policy. The following reforms deserve serious consideration.First, unjustified quotas based on professional identity, political status, administrative rank, or personal influence should be abolished. However, constitutionally permissible and objectively justified special arrangements should remain available for genuinely disadvantaged groups and citizens requiring additional support.Second, an open application process should be introduced for all eligible citizens. Applicants’ financial circumstances, ownership of residential property in Dhaka, actual housing needs, and previous receipt of government housing benefits should be properly verified.Third, when the number of eligible applicants exceeds the available plots, allocation should take place through a transparent digital lottery. The process should be broadcast live, independently monitored, and supported by digitally maintained records that can be audited.Fourth, the lists of applicants and successful recipients, eligibility criteria, plot locations, sizes, and allocation prices should be made publicly accessible. Institutional transparency can be ensured while maintaining appropriate safeguards for personal information.Fifth, previous allocations should be reviewed impartially. Where evidence emerges of allocations made in violation of regulations, multiple plot ownership, submission of false information, or abuse of authority, appropriate legal action should follow.These measures would help establish public confidence in RAJUK and ensure that the allocation of limited public land is based on objective criteria rather than privilege or influence.Housing Opportunities and the Equitable Distribution of Public ResourcesThe government’s responsibility extends beyond allocating residential plots to selected groups. It must also address the country’s broader housing challenges. Land scarcity in Dhaka, extraordinarily high property prices, housing difficulties faced by low- and middle-income families, and unplanned urbanisation remain major concerns.In this context, state-owned land should be utilised to serve broader public interests rather than concentrated among a limited number of privileged individuals.RAJUK’s housing projects should place greater emphasis on affordable housing for low- and middle-income groups. There is little justification for repeatedly extending state housing benefits to individuals who already own houses or possess adequate residential assets. Conversely, special housing programmes for genuinely homeless, economically disadvantaged, and housing-deprived citizens are both a humanitarian necessity and an ethical responsibility.Justice in the distribution of state resources does not necessarily mean providing everyone with identical benefits. Rather, it means ensuring fair opportunities according to genuine needs, objective eligibility, and legitimate public interest.The government should therefore reconsider RAJUK’s existing plot allocation rules and abolish unjustified professional and position-based quotas. At the same time, constitutionally legitimate affirmative measures for genuinely disadvantaged citizens must be protected. Political influence, administrative recommendations, and personal connections should have no place in the allocation process.The state belongs to everyone, and its resources must serve all citizens. Constitutional equality should not remain confined to declarations and legal texts; it must be reflected in every aspect of public administration and the distribution of state-owned resources. Ensuring equal access to public land is not merely an administrative reform; it is an essential expression of constitutional democracy, social justice, and responsible governance.Author: Md. Mukhlesur RahmanIslamic Finance Specialist, Economist, Social and Political Thinker, Geopolitical Analyst, and Human Rights Activist