THE government鈥檚 initiative to effect some important recommendations of the judicial reforms commission meant to modernise the judiciary, expedite the disposal of civil cases and stop procedural abuse is welcome. The initiative, which the government announced at a briefing in the capital on April 17, includes amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to save time, reduce litigation cost and attend to the backlog of cases, as the reforms commission has suggested. The government says that the reforms to the outdated procedures are needed to put the judiciary in sync with contemporary needs. An amendment has also been proposed to increase the penalty for filing false or vexatious cases to Tk 50,000 from Tk 20,000. A proposal has been made to do away with the need for a separate execution order after the verdict in civil cases. The amendment will ensure the execution orders are included in the verdict. The reform will impose limitations on how many adjournments parties could seek during proceedings and the courts would be required to specify the number of cases scheduled for full or partial hearing each day. The commission, set up on October 3, 2024, submitted the recommendations to the chief adviser on January 31, 2025.
There are about 4.05 million cases, keeping to Supreme Court records, pending as of September 2023. Of the cases, 528,583 were pending with the Supreme Court and 34,98,634 with subordinate courts. The remark of the chief justice, made in September 2021, that it even takes 10 years to dispose of one case only paints a bleak picture. In such a situation, reform in the legislation for an early disposal of civil cases is pressing. This so does as the parties to the case, meanwhile, lose everything. An increase in the penalty by two times and a half for filing false cases would certainly deter people from wasting the time of the courts. The execution order to accompany the verdict in civil cases would cut down on the harassment of justice-seekers. The limitation on the number of adjournments would stop the proceedings from being dragged on. The requirement for the courts to specify the number of cases for hearing would improve case management and judicial efficiency. The introduction of digital means such as short messaging service to serve court summons could well do away with the time required in analog communication, which would speed up the processes. The institutional reforms effected with recommendations, perhaps along with some others, would make the judiciary more efficient than it is now.
All this would be a significant step to modernise the judiciary, to speed up the disposal of civil cases and cut down on harassment of justice-seekers.