Symbolic reforms or substantive changes?

‘Reform’ was a magic word pronounced innumerable times during the interim government’s time, yet the actual efficacy, urgency, and process of bringing those reforms still remain a matter of debate. When reforms are carried out, they ought to address the fundamental structural or institutional inefficiencies of the system, in order to be meaningful. Contrarily, prioritising symbolic over actual reforms might cast a shadow over the entire process. The change in the title prefixed to the judges is one such example.

Section 3 of the Civil Courts Act 1887 sets out that there shall be five classes of Civil Courts with five different classes of judges presiding over them. However, the recent Civil Courts (Amendment) Act 2026 (repealing the Ordinance with the same name) amended the aforementioned categories by changing the titles of judges from ‘Assistant’ Judge to ‘Civil’ Judge. The amendment was brought in line with the report by the Judicial Reform Commission, which noted that the mention of ‘Assistant’ before the Judge’s title creates confusion among the common people seeking justice about the powers and jurisdiction of the concerned judges.

Three key reasons can be identified to support this amendment. First, in neighbouring jurisdictions, like India and Pakistan, a judge of similar status is referred to as ‘Civil Judge’ instead of ‘Assistant Judge’. Second, from a layman’s perspective, ‘Assistant Judge’ may suggest that they are a judge’s personal assistant, which may indeed confuse the public at large. Third, if we look at it historically, the judiciary has never used the term ‘Assistant’ as a prefix to judges, and the term was foreign to the Judicial Office. In 1987, the title ‘Munsif’ was changed to ‘Assistant Judge’ through the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act 1987. It seems that the object was to imitate the terminology used in reference to other Bangladesh Civil Service (BCS) officers. However, after the separation, to a limited extent, of the judiciary from executive through the Masdar Hossain Case verdict in 2007, the use of the titles ‘Assistant Judge’ and ‘Senior Assistant Judge’ appears problematic.

Indeed, this change is not inherently problematic since symbolic terminology and public perception of those said terminology do shape public trust, which is indispensable to the legitimacy of courts. However, when symbolic reforms are brought in isolation, there is a risk of them becoming substitutes for substantive changes.

The Judicial Reform Commission had put forward a wide range of substantive and long-overdue reform proposals, which require systemic changes and resources. It included the formation of national and district-level investigation committees to reduce corruption, the establishment of four types of legal aid and mediation offices, the creation of an independent legal education board, the enhancement of a dedicated mediation law to formally institutionalise Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Bangladesh, etc. Although many of these recommendations have been translated into law, their implementation is still overdue. Against this backdrop, the prompt implementation of this particular recommendation, which is limited solely to a change in name, invites scrutiny. It is thus difficult to avoid the question whether the authorities opted for the least demanding course of action and, in doing so, found a convenient means of demonstrating compliance with the reform agenda without engaging with the deeper, more challenging and more crucial institutional reforms.

In a country where case backlog, lack of enforcement of laws, false and vexatious litigation, political influence over the judiciary, shortage of judges and many other problems plague the judiciary, should our priority really be fixating on terminologies, whereas countless other reforms are yet to see the light of day? If Bangladesh claims to be actually committed to judicial modernisation, then the reforms must go beyond mere symbolism and address deeper fundamental and structural weaknesses that prevent the courts from delivering timely and effective justice.

Md. Abdur Rahman Galib, Student of law at the University of Dhaka.