Judicial overhaul hits roadblock, commission frustrated as reforms crawl forward

Highlights:

• Only nine of 30 recommendations implemented by interim government
• Progress limited to administrative tweaks; major structural reforms stalled
• Big-ticket reforms remain untouched, including decentralisation and independent investigations
• Commission chair and members express frustration over slow, directionless implementation
• Legal profession divided over High Court decentralisation and constitutional risks
• Some insiders call pace satisfactory, citing laws passed; gaps persist

The interim government has implemented only nine of the 30 recommendations made by the Judicial Reform Commission, prompting frustration among key members of the body over what they describe as a lack of urgency and direction in carrying out broader reforms.

So far, the government has moved on to relatively contained reforms: setting up a separate Supreme Court secretariat, forming a judges' appointment commission, amending select civil and criminal law provisions, and revising the International Crimes Tribunal Act. Beyond these steps, however, progress has largely ground to a halt.

Big-ticket reforms – judicial decentralisation, upazila-level courts, a permanent public attorney service, curbs on presidential clemency, an independent criminal investigation service, and judiciary-related constitutional amendments – remain stuck in limbo.

Former Appellate Division justice and commission chairman Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman voiced clear frustration over the sluggish pace of implementation. Responding to The Business Standard's query on whether the progress met his expectations, he was blunt: "I am neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Things are moving as they are. I have no expectations left."

One of the most contentious recommendations was the proposal to decentralise the High Court by establishing permanent benches in each divisional city. Strong opposition from a majority of senior lawyers and legal experts has effectively stalled any government initiative or discussion on the issue.

Former district judge Masdar Hossain, another commission member and petitioner in the landmark separation-of-judiciary case, echoed the dissatisfaction. "Only a handful of our recommendations have been implemented," he said. "Several proposals were made to the consensus commission, and political parties, including the BNP, did not object. Yet the government is neither actively implementing them nor formally rejecting them."

Infograph: TBS

Reforms implemented so far

According to sources at the Ministry of Law and the Supreme Court, several institutional and administrative recommendations have already been implemented. These include the establishment of a separate secretariat for the Supreme Court, formation of a judges' appointment commission, setting up an information desk at the Supreme Court, and allocation of designated spaces in courts for women and children.

The government has also taken steps to remove legal barriers to appointing independent counsel in cases filed against lawyers, integrated mediation services with state-run legal aid programmes, amended selected provisions of civil and criminal laws, and revised the International Crimes Tribunal Act.

Structural changes still on hold

Core judicial governance reforms remain untouched. These include insulating the judiciary from political influence; setting rules for recruitment and service conditions of subordinate judges; creating a permanent public attorney service; regulating presidential clemency; establishing an independent criminal investigation body; and amending the Constitution where required.

Equally stalled are reforms aimed at everyday justice delivery: reducing litigant harassment, tackling corruption within the judiciary, enforcing alternative dispute resolution laws, expanding village courts, reforming legal education and the profession, curbing false and harassing cases, setting up commercial courts, and taking serious steps to clear the mounting case backlog. In short, the system's pressure points remain exactly where they were.

A profession split down the middle 

Senior Supreme Court lawyer Manzil Morshed supported the commission's proposals on judicial appointments and the permanent attorney service. However, he warned that permanent High Court benches at the divisional level would invite constitutional challenges. 

"The Eighth Amendment attempted this before, and the Supreme Court struck it down. Reintroducing it would face legal challenges," he said. Former Supreme Court Bar secretary Ruhul Kuddus Kajol echoed the same concerns.

Describing the matter as legally settled, senior lawyer Ahsanul Karim argued that divisional benches would increase corruption due to the absence of direct oversight by the Chief Justice and create space for fraudulent activities. He also opposed the idea of an independent criminal investigation service, while endorsing most other recommendations.

However, constitutional expert and Constitutional Reform Commission member Sharif Bhuiyan defended the proposal, citing a survey showing that 90% of respondents favour High Court decentralisation. "This can be done without altering the unitary structure of the Supreme Court or curtailing jurisdiction," he said, adding that litigants could still approach any bench nationwide.

Appellate Division lawyer Mohammad Shishir Monir also supported the move, arguing it could be achieved through a constitutional amendment. "For someone from Kurigram or Barishal, seeking anticipatory bail means travelling to Dhaka. Divisional benches would ease public ordeal," he said.

Commission divided over pace and progress

Within the commission itself, assessments of progress are not uniform. Commission member and special consultant to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Barrister Tanim Hossain Hossain Shawon, described the pace as "satisfactory," pointing to enacted laws on judicial appointments, the Supreme Court secretariat, separation of civil and criminal laws, approval of the Commercial Courts Ordinance, and amendments to the Legal Aid Ordinance.

At the same time, he acknowledged clear gaps, noting that the draft for a permanent public attorney service remains unfinished and that only some recommendations found their way into the July National Charter. 

While infrastructure initiatives – such as renovation of the Dhaka court building – have begun, he said these may not be completed under the interim government. He also flagged limited initiative by the Supreme Court in implementing key case management reforms, underscoring the uneven nature of progress.

The eight-member Judicial Reform Commission was formed on 3 October 2024 under Justice Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman. After consultations with stakeholders, it submitted a 352-page report containing 30 reform proposals to Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus on 2 February. The government later said full implementation would require constitutional amendments in several areas.