Navigating our case backlogs and some proposals for reform

'Justice delayed is justice denied'- the aphorism has become a lived reality for many Bangladeshi victims. Our courts are groaning under a mounting backlog: by the end of 2024, roughly 4.5 million cases were pending across the judiciary, with well over 3.8 million cases in the lower courts alone.

This ballooning docket is not merely an abstract administrative problem. Pendency corrodes the rule of law: victims wait years for hearings, witnesses disappear, or their memories fade, evidence grows stale, and the incentive to settle outside court, sometimes under coercion, rises. For the disadvantaged, protracted litigation is effectively a denial of remedy. The backlog also imposes enormous economic and emotional costs on litigants and saps public confidence in institutions meant to protect rights.

Hence, the question remains why are the cases piling up. First, Bangladesh suffers from a chronic shortage of judges in the judiciary. In fact, Bangladesh has one of the lowest judge-to-population ratios in the region. Courts often have to cope with vacancies and heavy dockets. Similarly, sessions courts and district benches face acute staff shortages that make timely hearings impossible. Recent reports also show persistent year-on-year growth in pending cases at the High Court Division and Appellate Division.

Since convictions depend on timely and credible investigations, the government should prioritise establishing regional forensic labs, fast-tracking the police training on preservation of evidence, and creating protocols that limit otherwise needless remands. Investing in mobile forensic units and specialist prosecution teams for complex crimes would shorten the investigation-to-trial pipeline.

Second, there is acute procedural inertia. Many aspects of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1898 and Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) 1908, some dating from the colonial era, still govern our courts. Repeated adjournments, remands, and other procedural loopholes lengthen trials. Academic and policy studies often single out archaic procedures and weak case management as core drivers of delay.

Third, weak or delayed investigation means that prosecutors and the defence face evidentiary gaps at trial. That problem is especially stark in serious crimes (rape, homicide) where investigations require forensic capacity that the system often lacks. The result is frequent acquittals, referrals for further enquiry, or protracted retrials that multiply court work. Lack of witness protection measures or delays in preparing the charge-sheets also prolong the trial process.

Also, corruption also obstructs access to justice. Transparency International Bangladesh's national household surveys and related reports show that interactions with law enforcement and judicial services are often tainted by bribery and informal payments. When citizens perceive the path to justice as costly or corrupt, they either abandon their claims or seek extra-legal resolutions, which further clog the system and erode rights.

In order to offset the situation, certain reforms must take place. Case management measures, which the Law Commission had time and again proposed, should be implemented. Instead of article-level commitments, the state should set and publish times as disposition targets for different categories of cases and establish an independent monitoring mechanism to report progress.

Additionally, judicial strength should be enhanced through the recruitment of more judges, magistrates and court staff. At the same time, digital case-tracking systems, remote hearings for routine interlocutory matters, and stricter rules on adjournments should be enacted. Digital docketing reduces duplication and makes bottlenecks visible to policymakers and the public. Several jurisdictions have shown that digital case-management units at the court level dramatically reduce adjournments, and Bangladesh may pilot the same.

Furthermore, since convictions depend on timely and credible investigations, the government should prioritise establishing regional forensic labs, fast-tracking the police training on preservation of evidence, and creating protocols that limit otherwise needless remands. Investing in mobile forensic units and specialist prosecution teams for complex crimes would shorten the investigation-to-trial pipeline. Notably, fear of reprisal is key reason why witnesses disappear and victims withdraw from prosecutions. Hence, robust witness-protection mechanisms, backed by budgetary commitments, must be adopted.

And finally, anti-corruption safeguards, clearer fee structures, public online tracking of case progress, and independent grievance mechanisms can restore confidence and reduce extra-legal settlements that mask systemic failure.

In conclusion, the reforms will require both political will and resources. Yet reforms can also save money. Delayed justice perpetuates uncertainty that deters investment, inflates transaction costs, and raises social instability. A court system that disposes of its cases promptly protects not only individual rights but also social order and economic activity.

Maymuna Mizan

Student of law at Bangladesh University of Professionals.