One of the most pressing and long-standing problems in Bangladesh’s judiciary is the overwhelming backlog of cases. With more than 4.5 million cases currently pending in courts across the country, the combination of an acute shortage of judges, procedural complexities, and growing public distrust in the justice system has made it increasingly difficult for litigants to secure timely redress. In response to this crisis, the government has taken a bold step: introducing mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)—specifically, pre-litigation mediation for certain categories of disputes.
In a landmark policy shift, the government enacted the Legal Aid (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025 revising the Legal Aid Act, 2000, and making mediation compulsory for disputes under nine specific laws—five civil and four criminal. Under this new ordinance, parties involved in such disputes must first attempt resolution through mediation at the district-level Legal Aid Offices before proceeding to court. Only upon failure of mediation can a formal lawsuit be filed, and a report of the failed mediation must accompany the plaint.
The government justifies this policy as an initiative to curb frivolous litigation, reduce harassment of innocent individuals, decrease the case backlog, and promote cost and time-efficient justice.
According to the Ministry of Law, this approach is intended to strengthen alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and establish a culture of compromise and dialogue over confrontation.
However, legal experts and practitioners have expressed serious concerns, warning that such a change, if not carefully implemented, could hinder access to justice, exacerbate delays, and open the door to further harassment of already vulnerable litigants—particularly women, the elderly, and the financially weak individuals.
Laws requiring mandatory pre-litigation mediation.
As per the ordinance, parties must go through mediation under the Legal Aid framework before filing cases in court for disputes under the following five civil and four criminal statutes:
Civil Laws
1. Family Courts Act, 2023– Family disputes under section 5
2. Premises Rent Control Act, 1991– Tenancy related disputes
3. Partition suits within the juris diction of Assistant Judges
4. State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 – Right of pre-emption under Section 96
5. Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 – Pre-emption under Section 24
Criminal Laws
1. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881– Dishonour of cheques under Section 138 (up to BDT 5 lakh)
2. Dowry Prohibition Act, 2018- Offences under Sections 3 and 4
3. Prevention of Oppression against Women and Children Act, 2000– Section 11(c), related to dowry based abuse
4. Parents’ Maintenance Act, 2013– Disputes under Section 8
Under these statutes, legal action may only be initiated after an attempt at mediation fails, and such failure must be certified and documented by the Legal Aid Officer. This report must then be submitted to the relevant court along with the complaint or case filing.
Government’s View and objectives:
According to the Ministry of Law, the aim is to decongest courts by preventing cases that can be resolved amicably. From 2009 to March 2024, over 1.2 million citizens received free legal services from Legal Aid Offices across the country. The offices also facilitated the recovery of more than Tk 252 crore in damages. These figures, the government claims, demonstrate the potential of institutionalized ADR to resolve disputes faster and more economically.
Furthermore, the government proposes the creation of new posts such as Chief Legal Aid Officers and Special Mediators (to be selected from retired District Judges or experienced lawyers with formal training in mediation) to strengthen the mediation infrastructure.
Concerns from the Legal Community:
Despite honest intentions, many legal professionals argue that the ground realities do not support the sweeping enforcement of such a mandatory system. Currently, each of the 64 districts has only one Legal Aid Officer, who is also a judge. In high-volume districts like Dhaka, where hundreds of new cases involving family matters, dowry, rent, or cheque dishonour are filed daily, it is simply impractical for one officer to mediate them all. This could lead to even more delay, increased legal costs, and harassment of justice seekers.
Moreover, questions of fairness arise in sensitive criminal matters. For instance, in cases of dowry-related violence, asking a victim to engage in mediation with the alleged abuser could traumatize the complainant and suppress their access to immediate legal protection. In such cases, mandatory mediation risks undermining victims’ rights and the very concept of justice.
Challenges in Practical Implications:
The legal maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” finds renewed relevance here. By inserting a mandatory provision of pre-litigation bureaucracy, justice-seekers especially women and low-income groups may face further delay and increased financial burden.
Critics have also noted that imposing a one-size-fits-all model on diverse legal issues may dilute the effectiveness of both civil and criminal adjudication. Particularly, when offences are not compoundable by nature, mandatory mediation could be seen as a violation of procedural fairness.
Some experts have suggested that the decision to initiate mediation should remain with the parties and their legal representatives not dictated by ordinance. Otherwise, it risks converting justice into a bureaucratic procedure rather than a constitutional right.
Way Forward and Recommendations:
Although the ordinance provides for the appointment of Chief Legal Aid Officers and Special Mediators, including retired judges and experienced lawyers, the success of this initiative depends on rapid and proper implementation. To implement this policy effectively, the following measures are essential:
• Recruitment of adequate numbers of Legal Aid Officers, Special Mediators, and administrative support staff
• Investment in case management systems, mediation training, and office infrastructure
• Exemptions for certain sensitive cases (e.g., domestic abuse, dowry-related violence) from mandatory mediation
• Public awareness campaigns and legal literacy programs
• Engaging and discussion with legal stakeholders, including judges, senior lawyers, and civil society
Establishment of Fixed Timelines and Clear Procedures
To prevent unnecessary delay, the ordinance must be supported by clearly defined rules outlining strict timeframes for each stage of the mediation process—from registration to final reporting. Standard operating procedures should be developed to ensure consistency, fairness, and predictability across districts. This will also prevent misuse of the process by parties seeking to delay litigation through prolonged mediation.
Formation of Local Monitoring and Evaluation Cells
Transparency and accountability can only be ensured through active oversight. The government should establish district-level monitoring cells comprising of judicial officers, members of the Bar Association, and representatives from civil society. These bodies should regularly review the performance of Legal Aid Offices, receive complaints, and publish periodic evaluation reports. Such mechanisms will not only build trust but also help identify systemic bottlenecks early on.
Strengthening ADR mechanism is undoubtedly necessary for building a more resilient and responsive justice system. But such reforms must be facilitative, not coercive. If mandatory mediation makes the path to justice more expensive, time-consuming, or intimidating especially for vulnerable groups it may exacerbate the problem it seeks to solve. The government must strive for balance: pursue efficiency, but never at the expense of equity. Most importantly, mediation should function as an option, not an obstacle. It should support justice, not suppress it.
The writer is an Advocate and
Adjunct Faculty of Law (BOU)
Legal Adviser cum Court Correspondent of
Bangladesh Post
Email:youthapproach@live.com, Mobile: +8801712-111536
