When the gates of Mitford Hospital no longer swallow petitions and power preserves privilege, citizens turn elsewhere—for verdicts, redress, or simple dignity.
It was such frustration behind the protests of July–August 2024, when thousands demanded not just the fall of the regime but a full-scale judicial reckoning.
Now, leading the charge from within the corridors of state power, the Judicial Reform Commission has delivered a 352-page roadmap to reclaim judicial independence and restore faith in justice.
With the uprising still echoing in Dhaka’s streets, Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus notified the formal creation of an eight-member Judicial Reform Commission on October 3, 2024, underlining an urgency unusual in governance’s often glacial tempo.
Retired Appellate Division Justice Shah Abu Naeem Mominur Rahman—ignored twice over for the chief justice’s post—accepted the mantle of leadership, declaring that only institutional reform could break the cycle of impunity.
His colleagues in the commission—High Court veterans Emdadul Haque and Farid Ahmed Shibli, former registrar Syed Aminul Islam, legal expert Tanim Hussain Shaon, academic Quazi Mahfujul Hoque Supan, and a student representative—formed a cross-section of judicial experience and public voice.
They were charged with formulating a blueprint by early 2025; on February 5, the report was formally submitted at the State Guest House Jamuna.
At a press briefing, Chief Adviser’s Press Secretary Shafiqul Alam conveyed their conviction: “Although previous governments claimed the judiciary was independent, it was not. Our report prescribes empowering courts through new institutions: an independent secretariat under the Supreme Court, a permanent government attorney service, and control over original appointment and discipline”—ideas long viewed as taboo in Bangladesh.
Reimagining the court
At the core of the blueprint is liberation from executive discretion in judicial appointments.
The report proposes a nine-member Judicial Appointments Commission, chaired by the Chief Justice, to vet candidates via open calls and merit-based selection—effectively transferring power from the presidency to the judiciary.
To guard integrity, it recommends empowering the Supreme Judicial Council with proactive authority to investigate judges—without presidential intervention—and establishing a formal Code of Conduct for all non-removable judicial offices.
Structural decentralization
A transformational reform is the proposal for a separate Supreme Court Secretariat—staffed, funded, and administratively autonomous from the Ministry of Law, ending decades of bureaucratic dependence.
At the district level, the commission has mapped out creating permanent High Court benches in all divisional headquarters by constitutional amendment, and upazila-level Senior Assistant Judge courts where case loads justify.
Permanent Attorneys
Recognizing systemic flaws in legal representation, the commission calls for a permanent Attorney Service—with attorney ranks, promotions, salaries, and infrastructure—professionalizing state advocacy and reducing political patronage.
A complementary recommendation is the creation of an independent Criminal Investigation Service—separate from police—with its own recruitment, budget, and disciplinary rules.
It would be empowered to lead high-profile investigations free from political manipulation.
Digital courtrooms
The digital transformation proposal is phased but ambitious:
Phase 1: Enact laws to enable e-filing, online case tracking, e-payment of court fees, and video-hearings.
Phase 2: Ensure half of all litigation activities navigate digital channels.
Phase 3: Fully integrate digital systems across judicial administration.
Meanwhile, new court infrastructure—buildings in 37 districts, CJM court facilities in 23 other districts, and separate courthouses for 34 upazilas—is envisioned alongside dedicated spaces for witnesses, detainees, and vulnerable litigants.
From backlogs to bench clarity
To address decades of case backlog, the commission proposes increasing judicial appointments across the Supreme Court, with at least three active Appellate benches.
Daily verdict uploads, shortened adjournment policies, digitized registers, and institutionalization of Judicial Administrative Officer (JAO) and Marshal Service roles aim to restore procedural efficiency.
Frivolous cases would be cut by empowering retired judges for contract posts, limiting judicial adjournments, and activating technology for remote witness testimony.
Accountability, ethics, and legal aid
Greater transparency underpins every chapter: asset declarations, ethics training, public complaints boxes at courts, and three-member inquiry panels to investigate judicial misconduct.
To ensure access to justice even for the indigent, the commission recommends a new Legal Aid Act—replacing the existing 2000 legislation—and scaling mediation, arbitration, and village courts via public awareness and structural reform.
Constitutional framework
Transforming legal culture requires binding law. The commission recommends constitutional amendments to:
- Establish the Judicial Appointments Commission in Article 95A.
- Grant full administrative control—budget, discipline—to the Supreme Court Secretariat.
- Extend retirement age to 70 and raise service experience from 10 to 15 years.
- Suggested revisions to Articles 48(3), 55(2), 94, 95, and 100 would reinforce separation of powers and eliminate echo chambers of political influence.
Human Rights Watch has praised these reforms for diluting the executive’s grip, but cautioned that “coercive pressure on the court system by protesters” still challenges independence.
Likewise, observers stress that the success of reforms—not just drafting—demands sustained investment, political courage, and civic engagement.
When asked about rising judicial independence, Law Adviser Dr Asif Nazrul commented in January that more reforms are underway “to shore up the secretariat, restructure public defence, and free appointments from political discretion.”
Law’s revolution—or regression?
From his inaugural speech, Justice Mominur Rahman warned, “If this moment is not translated into institutional reform, another revolution will follow—and that one could be more dangerous.”
Today, his commission has framed the challenge of revolution in laws, not barricades: a judicial vision anchored in meritocracy, transparency, and service.
If fully implemented, Bangladesh could emerge from last year’s Monsoon Revolution with not just new leaders, but a judiciary strong enough to hold all others to account.
The question now glides from commission to Cabinet Division: will this profound judicial blueprint be enacted—or archived?
