Published :
Updated :
For all latest news, follow The Financial Express Google News channel.
The judiciary has a crucial role to play in delivering justice, preventing the violation of human rights and holding accountable violators of the rule of law. In Bangladesh, however, dispensation of justice in a timely manner has become near to impossible because of the accumulation of about 4.51 million pending cases in different courts across the country. Litigants have to wait for several years, if not more than a decade, for justice due to the staggering number of backlog of cases.
Justice delayed is justice denied. Such delay, in fact, causes injustice and unfairness to all parties involved. Furthermore, the long delay in the disposal of cases runs the high risk of shattering the people's confidence in the justice system. There is also the question of cost. The longer a case drags on, the more disadvantageous it becomes for the poorer parties.
Chief Justice Dr. Syed Refaat Ahmed, who took office on September 21 last year, identified the "insufficient number of judges relative to the caseload" as a key reason for the backlog. In a recent speech, he emphasised the need for judicial reforms, including restructuring the judiciary's organogram and appointing judges in proportion to the population and caseload.
The numbers highlight the gravity of the situation. The Appellate Division has only five judges, each handling over 6,220 cases, while the High Court Division, with 81 judges, sees an average caseload of over 7,279 cases per judge. Together, these divisions have around 620,000 pending cases.
Lower courts face an even greater burden. Of the 2,254 judges nationwide, 319 are not actively engaged in judicial work, leaving only 1,935 judges to manage an overwhelming 3.89 million cases, which is growing by the day.
To address this crisis, the government-formed Judiciary Reform Commission (JRC) has proposed decentralising the court system. One of its key recommendations is to establish permanent benches of the High Court in every divisional headquarters by amending Article 100 of the Constitution.
Additionally, the JRC has suggested setting up senior assistant judge courts and first-class judicial magistrate courts in various upazilas. The commission suggested establishing these courts based on factors such as geographical location, distance from district headquarters, transportation systems, population density, and caseload distribution.
Simultaneously, the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) needs to be actively promoted as a means of expediting justice. ADR was introduced in both civil and criminal laws to help resolve disputes outside of court and reduce the backlog of pending lawsuits. However, its impact has been limited, with only a small percentage of cases settled through this mechanism. However, not all cases can be or should be resolved through ADR. Serious crimes like murder, robbery, and rape are offenses against society, not just individual victims, and must be dealt in accordance with established legal norms. But disputes related to land, family disagreements, and similar matters can be effectively resolved outside of court to the satisfaction of all parties involved.
Meanwhile, the sincerity of lawyers in expediting resolution of cases is also in question. The prevailing fee structure for lawyers in lower courts is also a disincentive that causes unnecessary delays. Lawyers typically earn fees based on the number of court appearances rather than on a contractual basis, which discourages the lawyers to do their bit in swift resolution of cases. Bar associations could play a role in reforming this practice by promoting or even mandating fee structures based on contracts rather than per-appearance payments.
Overall, the overwhelming backlog of cases and resulting delays have created a debilitating situation for those seeking justice. Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that justice is delivered in a timely and equitable manner.