A legal notice has been served on the government seeking immediate steps to ensure adequate and reasonable budgetary allocation for the judiciary and protect people’s rights to justice, fair trial and speedy trial.
Two Supreme Court lawyers, Barrister Mohammad Humayun Kabir Pallab and Barrister Mohammad Kawsar, sent the notice on Sunday.
The notice was sent by registered post and email to the secretary of the Law and Justice Division, Cabinet secretary, secretary of the Finance Division, registrar general of the Supreme Court and attorney general.
Citing Article 21 of the Constitution, the lawyers said citizens have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution, while lawyers, as officers of the court, are sworn to prevent constitutional violations.
The notice also cited Article 22, which provides for the separation of the judiciary from the executive, arguing that meaningful separation cannot be ensured without adequate financial and infrastructural support.
Supreme Court allocation
According to the notice, the proposed national budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year allocates Tk291 crore for the Supreme Court, up from Tk270 crore in the revised budget for 2025-26.
The lawyers said the allocation was insignificant compared with the Tk938,000 crore national budget, the largest in the country’s history.
The notice also referred to a recent statement by Law Minister Md Asaduzzaman, who described the judiciary as the “most neglected sector”. He reportedly said the total allocation for the judiciary was Tk2,200 crore, compared with Tk2,500 crore for Bangladesh Television and more than Tk4,000 crore for the Ministry of Youth and Sports.
The notice argued that the disparity demonstrates the state’s neglect of the judiciary, which is responsible for administering justice to more than 170 million people.
A significant portion of the Tk2,200 crore allocation is spent on salaries and allowances for subordinate court officials, administration, infrastructure and development projects, including the construction of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court buildings and e-judiciary automation, according to the notice.
Despite this, the lawyers said the overall allocation remains inadequate considering the judiciary’s workload, case backlog and constitutional importance.
The notice said the judiciary’s allocation has averaged only 0.41% of the national budget over the past two decades, with development allocations for the Supreme Court reaching zero in some years.
Case backlog
The notice cited media reports putting the current number of pending cases in the High Court and subordinate courts at more than 4.51 million.
It said the backlog had become not only a judicial issue but also a social crisis, undermining public confidence, discouraging investment and increasing social inequality.
According to the notice, as of December 31, 2024, around 31,120 cases were pending in the Appellate Division and about 580,000 cases in the High Court Division.
It said the Appellate Division currently has six judges, while the High Court Division has 103 judges — 77 permanent and 26 additional.
The lawyers claimed the caseload was more than 5,000 cases per judge in each division, which they said was inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a speedy and fair trial.
The notice also said the state-sponsored Judiciary Reform Commission had recommended increasing the number of subordinate court judges from about 2,000 to at least 6,000 and ensuring at least seven judges in the Appellate Division.
The commission submitted its recommendations in January 2025, but no specific budget estimate for implementing them has been published, the notice said.
Infrastructure shortage
The lawyers said inadequate funding had resulted in shortages of chambers, seating, toilets, clean water, digital and IT infrastructure and library facilities for lawyers.
Litigants and members of the public also face overcrowding, delays and inadequate facilities, according to the notice.
The notice said only two High Court benches were currently dealing with commercial cases, leaving commercial disputes worth about Tk250,000 crore unresolved year after year.
It also noted that the Appellate Division had 11 judges in 2009 but currently has only five, making it difficult to operate multiple benches.
According to the notice, the number of cases in the Appellate Division increased from 4,056 in 1972 to about 42,000 currently.
It further said only 35% of cases filed in the High Court Division and 18% of cases filed in the Appellate Division were disposed of during the October-December quarter of 2024.
The notice cited the latest Supreme Court Bar Association voter list, which has 11,097 registered lawyers, saying the figure was a conservative estimate of the number of active lawyers working with inadequate infrastructure.
Citing investigative reports, the lawyers said litigants often have to wait for hours in crowded Supreme Court corridors, while judges sometimes have to share courtrooms because of a shortage of space.
The notice also highlighted the lack of digital case archives and basic office equipment, claiming judicial officers sometimes have to seek supplies from the Law Ministry.
It cited the law minister as saying that judges may even have to postpone recording testimony if they run out of paper because of delays in administrative allocation.
Constitutional rights
The notice alleged that the government’s inaction and inadequate allocation violate several constitutional provisions, including Articles 27, 31, 32, 35(3), 22, 94, 116A, 44 and 21, relating to equality before the law, protection of law, life and personal liberty, speedy and public trial, separation of the judiciary, the Supreme Court, judicial independence, enforcement of fundamental rights and public duties.
The lawyers also argued that the judiciary generates significant revenue for the state through court fees, non-judicial stamp duties, process fees and fines.
However, they said there is no publicly available separate and transparent account showing the judiciary’s total revenue collection and demanded that such an account be published annually.
Demands
The notice asked the authorities to immediately ensure adequate budgetary allocation for the Supreme Court, provide minimum facilities for lawyers, and formulate a reasonable budget framework in consultation with the chief justice.
It also called for the appointment of an adequate number of judges, formation of additional benches in the Appellate and High Court divisions, and publication of an assessment determining the required number of judges and benches based on case volume, disposal rates and filing trends.
The lawyers also demanded a separate and transparent annual account of the judiciary’s actual revenue collection.
The recipients were asked to inform the lawyers in writing of the steps taken within three days.
Otherwise, the lawyers said they would file a writ petition in the High Court Division in the public interest, alleging violations of Articles 7, 21, 22, 27, 31, 32, 35(3), 44, 94 and 116A of the Constitution.