Home
+
Published : 21 Jul 2026, 10:00 AM
A Different Way to Settle
Mounting pressure: More than 4.5 million pending cases continue to strain Bangladesh's courts.
New approach: The Supreme Court is weighing ADR to resolve eligible cases through mediation before prolonged litigation.
What stands in the way: Manpower shortages, poor facilities and low legal aid fees could limit the programme's success.
Bangladesh is weighing whether to bring alternative dispute resolution (ADR), a system of out-of-court settlement, to the Supreme Court itself, aiming to ease the burden on litigants and cut down the backlog of cases.
Imtiazul Islam, chief officer of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Office, said if implemented, the initiative would let minor family and civil disputes be settled through one or two sittings, without going through lengthy legal proceedings.
Questions remain, though, over whether the move would meaningfully reduce the case backlog, and what challenges lie ahead in making it work.
ADR is currently mandatory across the country's 64 district legal aid offices, but no such system has existed at the Supreme Court Legal Aid Office until now.
The backlog of cases has long been a persistent complaint within the judiciary, coming up under successive governments over the years.
Speaking at an exchange of views organised by the Magura District Bar Association on Sunday afternoon, Law Minister Md Asaduzzaman said more than 4.5 million cases remained unresolved across the country, and that the current government was working towards their proper resolution as part of efforts to ensure an impartial judicial system.
Islam, who holds the rank of additional district and sessions judge and heads the Supreme Court Legal Aid Office, told bdnews24.com that the office currently has no system for mediation or bringing two parties together to settle disputes, unlike the country's other 64 offices.
"While serving as a district legal aid officer, I settled numerous family, partition, civil and criminal disputes within a short time through mediation," he said.
"After joining the office, I reviewed the law and found there is no legal obstacle to introducing ADR here. It can be launched if the authorities choose to do so."
He said the proposal had received a positive response from the chief justice.
"After I briefed the chief justice on the overall situation at the Supreme Court, he treated the proposal with great importance and directed us to prepare the necessary files and documents to introduce ADR. Those files have already been submitted, and the implementation process is now under way."
To explain why the initiative is needed, Islam cited the example of a woman from Cox's Bazar pursuing a Tk 200,000 dower claim before the High Court.
"If such a case reaches the High Court, it could take at least five years to conclude," he said.
"If she has to travel repeatedly from Cox's Bazar to Dhaka over five years to recover Tk 200,000, her travel costs alone could exceed the amount she is claiming. Yet many disputes like this can often be settled through a 20-minute mediation session."
He said the initial proposal covers four categories of disputes under the Family Courts Act: dower, maintenance, restitution of conjugal rights, and custody of minor children.
The proposal also includes cases filed under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, and Section 11(c) of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act involving ordinary injuries linked to dowry demands.
The official said the chief justice had returned the proposal, asking that its scope be widened.
"The chief justice observed that limiting the proposal to only four categories of cases was too narrow and suggested examining whether more laws could be included.”
Following that direction, Islam is now considering bringing certain compoundable offences under the Penal Code, as well as declaratory and partition-related civil disputes, within the proposed ADR framework.
He argued that mediation works best because it removes outside influence from the dispute resolution process.
"The biggest advantage of ADR is that there is no third-party interference. When outside interests become involved, disputes often become harder to resolve because some people benefit from prolonging them.
"In this system, litigants appear directly before us and explain their problems. Notices are sent to defendants both electronically and in hard copy. Once both sides attend, many disputes can be resolved through discussion."
He stressed that the Legal Aid Office would not interfere with the judicial authority of the Supreme Court.
"The High Court mainly hears serious criminal cases such as murder, rape and life imprisonment matters, which cannot be settled through ADR," he said.
Under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, courts can assign a third party to facilitate mediation, he explained.
"If mediation succeeds or fails, I will submit a report to the relevant bench. The judges will then decide the case or issue any necessary orders based on that report. Full authority over the case will remain with the judges."
Supreme Court Legal Aid panel lawyer Ishrat Hasan welcomed the initiative, saying it could help ease the country's mounting case backlog.
"We now have nearly 4.7 million pending cases. It is simply impossible to clear such a backlog through the conventional court process alone," she told bdnews24.com.
"We often see disputes over a tiny plot of land or minor family disagreements between husbands and wives ending up in the High Court. The parties spend years in litigation, losing not only money but also social relationships and dignity."
She said ADR allows both sides to compromise instead of creating winners and losers.
"If disputes are settled through discussion, both parties can make some concessions and reach an acceptable solution. That avoids the adversarial situation where one side wins and the other loses."
Referring to the token fees paid to Legal Aid panel lawyers, Ishrat said financial gain was not what motivated them.
"The reality is that lawyers do not join the Supreme Court Legal Aid panel for money. After handling a case for several years, a lawyer receives only Tk 6,000 in fees.
"No one continues such cases for that amount. In many instances, we spend from our own pockets. Lawyers provide these services out of social responsibility and a commitment to public service."
She urged the Bangladesh Bar Council to encourage greater participation in legal aid work.
"I believe the Bar Council should make it mandatory for every lawyer to devote 10 percent to 20 percent of their professional workload to pro bono legal services.
"That would make legal aid part of a lawyer's professional responsibility and increase both participation and enthusiasm."
Islam, however, identified manpower and infrastructure shortages as the biggest obstacles to making ADR work at the Supreme Court.
"People from across the country come here seeking legal aid, yet I am the only officer handling these responsibilities. I have just five staff members supporting me.
"We also lack proper infrastructure. We do not even have a usable washroom. When I joined, there was not a single computer in the office. We later secured one after requesting the registrar general. We hope to receive dedicated office space once the Record Room building is completed."
Ishrat pointed to similar operational problems.
"Under the rules, service seekers should first approach the Legal Aid Office before the office coordinates with us. But because of the shortage of personnel, many people come directly to us, leaving us with little choice but to assist them ourselves."
She said more Legal Aid officers were essential for proper case management.
"One officer cannot supervise cases from across the country. We also need several full-time panel lawyers. At present, we often have to rely on staff from our own chambers to complete necessary work."
She added that introducing ADR would require even more staff and better facilities.
Ishrat recalled that the 2005 Legal Aid Ordinance had proposed creating the post of chief legal aid officer and other positions, while also allowing certain cases to be referred to legal aid before reaching court.
"The Supreme Court is handling an ever-growing caseload. Expanding manpower and strengthening infrastructure at the Supreme Court Legal Aid Office has now become essential."
While calling the ADR initiative positive, Supreme Court lawyer Azizur Rahman Dulu questioned whether the current structure could deliver meaningful results.
"The Supreme Court has appointed around 100 panel lawyers. In reality, they are selected after submitting applications reviewed by the Legal Aid Office," he said.
"Those appointed are often less experienced, less established in practice and have limited legal expertise."
He alleged that panel appointments followed a "choose-and-pick" system rather than an open competition.
"As a result, lawyers with weaker legal knowledge are unable to provide effective legal assistance, making negative outcomes almost inevitable."
Dulu proposed a different approach.
"My advice is that Legal Aid panel lawyers should be recruited through an open, competitive examination.
"They should also receive more attractive remuneration. Better lawyers will then be willing to join the programme, making the initiative far more effective."
