On October 24, a 64-year-old university teacher boarded Dhaka’s metro rail and never returned home. Mr. Najibur Rahman, an associate professor at the National University, reportedly became unwell on a crowded train and repeatedly asked for a seat. According to his son, no one responded before he collapsed. He was later declared dead at the hospital.
We cannot know whether being seated would have changed the medical outcome. Nor do we know whether the passengers occupying the designated priority seats were themselves in need. His son has wisely refrained from blaming anyone. Yet this painful incident exposes a question Bangladesh cannot avoid: why should an elderly or visibly unwell person have to plead for the most basic consideration in public transport?
I remember when smoking inside buses and railway compartments was widely tolerated, even while other passengers suffered in silence. The Smoking and Tobacco Products Usage (Control) Act of 2005, strengthened again in 2026, helped establish that enclosed public transport is not a place where one person’s preference overrides another’s health. Laws, signs, public education and enforcement gradually change what society considers acceptable. Respectful treatment of vulnerable passengers deserves the same seriousness.
Surprisingly, Bangladesh is not starting from zero. Section 20 of the Metro Rail Act 2015 requires reserved seats in every coach for older passengers, persons with disabilities, women, children and wounded freedom fighters. Section 34 of the Road Transport Act 2018 empowers authorities to designate seats for older people and other vulnerable groups. The Rights and Protection of Persons with Disabilities Act 2013 provides for reserving five percent of public transport seats for persons with disabilities.
We also have a National Policy on Older Persons, adopted in 2013, and a law addressing children’s duty to maintain their parents. But these instruments do not yet create a sufficiently clear, consistent and easily enforceable guarantee of dignified treatment across buses, trains, metro services, and steamers or passenger vessels. Having a reserved-seat provision is not the same as ensuring that someone who needs the seat can actually use it.
Recent policy shows both progress and inconsistency. In May 2026, senior citizens aged 65 and above became eligible for a 25 percent fare concession on railway and metro services. That is welcome. Yet the national older-persons policy generally recognises older people from age 60. More importantly, a cheaper ticket offers little comfort if an unwell passenger must remain standing. Financial concessions and physical accessibility must move together.
Other countries demonstrate what an integrated approach can look like. The Philippines’ Expanded Senior Citizens Act 2010 grants transport discounts and priority services. Its implementing rules explicitly call for the strict implementation of courtesy spaces and seats for senior citizens across transport systems. It treats access as a public obligation, not merely an appeal to goodwill.
In Britain, accessibility regulations require qualifying buses to provide at least four clearly marked priority seats for passengers with disabilities. London’s transport system also uses visible signs and voluntary ‘Please offer me a seat’ badges, recognising that some needs are not apparent. Delhi Metro provides reserved seating and introduced priority security screening for elderly, pregnant, disabled and injured passengers in 2025. Meanwhile, Singapore has spent years promoting considerate commuting through public campaigns, signage and operator rules. The lesson is not that every country punishes an inconsiderate passenger. It is that design, rules, staff intervention and sustained education must reinforce one another.
Bangladesh should consider a Senior Citizens’ Privileges and Protection Act, built around existing legislation rather than merely repeating it. Its first task should be to establish uniform, enforceable standards for priority seating in metro trains, regular rail services, public buses and passenger vessels or steamers. Operators should have clear obligations concerning seat numbers, signs, announcements, accessibility and assistance. Priority facilities should be visible, usable and regularly inspected.
The protection must extend beyond age alone. People with disabilities, pregnant women, passengers recovering from surgery, those suddenly taken ill and others with limited mobility may need the same help. Not all disabilities are visible. A young passenger occupying a priority seat may have a serious medical condition; nobody should be humiliated or presumed dishonest because they look healthy. During a medical emergency, demanding identification before offering assistance would be absurd.
A sensible framework would require passengers who do not themselves need a designated priority seat to release it when properly requested. Transport staff should be authorised and trained to intervene calmly, find alternative accommodation where possible and protect everyone from harassment. Deliberate obstruction or abuse could attract proportionate sanctions after warnings and fair review. Operators who fail to provide and manage the required facilities should face regulatory consequences. The law must reward cooperation, not manufacture confrontations between generations.
Emergency response deserves equal attention. Every metro system should have unmistakable ways to alert staff, trained responders, prompt access to medical help and appropriate emergency equipment. Similar practical protocols are needed on longer-distance trains, buses and passenger vessels. A priority seat cannot replace medical treatment, but a functioning passenger-care system can ensure that distress does not go unnoticed.
Implementation should be measurable. DMTCL need not wait for Parliament to reinforce the existing Metro Rail Act. The government could begin with a nationwide audit of priority seats and passenger-assistance procedures. Transport regulators should publish simple compliance standards, establish accessible complaint channels and report corrective action. Public announcements should regularly remind passengers that priority means priority when someone needs help, not only when a seat happens to be vacant.
Education must start early. Schools, colleges and universities can teach courtesy in shared spaces as a civic responsibility. Social media campaigns can invite younger passengers to look up, notice distress and offer assistance. But it would be unfair to condemn an entire generation. Many young people already make room for others; public policy should reinforce that instinct rather than turn compassion into a contest between age groups.
Bangladesh’s ageing population will make these questions increasingly urgent. We invest in modern trains, roads, stations and terminals, and rightly so. Yet the quality of public transport is also measured by how it treats someone who cannot stand comfortably, move quickly or speak loudly enough to be heard.
Our lawmakers should not wait for another tragedy. They should turn scattered provisions and good intentions into a coherent framework of rights, responsibilities and enforcement. A seat offered to someone in need is a small act. A country that makes such consideration dependable takes a much larger step towards civilisation.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The writer is a Maritime, Logistics and Supply Chain policy analyst | Adjunct Faculty, Bangladesh Maritime University
