Alternative Dispute Resolution law failing to provide an alternative

Various initiatives have been taken in Bangladesh for years to make the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system effective to reduce the suffering of litigants and case backlogs. A legal framework has also been created. However, there is little interest among the parties in this faster and less expensive method. As a result, it has yet to achieve the desired success.

Legal experts say both parties need to have some willingness to compromise to resolve a dispute through the ADR system. However, such a mindset is relatively uncommon among people in Bangladesh. As a result, although the use of ADR through courts and Legal Aid offices has increased, it has yet to play a significant role in reducing the overall case backlog.

Alongside this, those concerned believe that the lack of an effective institutional structure to implement and oversee ADR, the shortage of trained mediators and the lack of trust in lawyers acting as mediators are also among the reasons for the failure of the system.

According to data from the Judicial Reform Commission, only 3,492 civil cases were resolved through ADR in subordinate courts across the country in 2020. A total of 4,170 cases were resolved through this method in 2021, 5,753 in 2022 and 5,158 in 2023.

During those years, the proportion of civil cases resolved through ADR was only 1.9 percent of the total civil cases disposed of.

However, the rate of case disposal through ADR by district Legal Aid offices is comparatively higher. Legal Aid offices across the country disposed of 12,633 cases in 2020. The number was 14,324 in 2021, 23,536 in 2022 and 29,813 in 2023.

In contrast, as of December 31, 2025, the number of pending cases in various courts across the country stood at 4,742,731. Of these, 41,551 were pending in the Appellate Division, 659,256 in the High Court Division and 4,041,924 in subordinate courts.

In addition, the number of pending cases in the country has increased steadily over the past 15 years and has nearly tripled and a half. Considering the rate of disposal through ADR against the huge number of pending cases, the limited use of the system becomes clear.

‘Less willingness to compromise’: Supreme Court senior lawyer Manzil Morshed told Agamir Somoy, “Both parties have to compromise to resolve a dispute through the ADR system. But people in our country have little willingness to compromise. Previously, after a lower court verdict, the parties would appeal to the High Court. In most cases, the parties would accept the High Court verdict. But now appeals are filed in the Appellate Division in nearly 90 percent of cases. This means there is no willingness to compromise.”

He said, “Currently, many laws directly state that cases must be sent to ADR. The relevant courts are also playing a role in this regard. Even then, disputes are not being resolved through the ADR system. Yet village arbitration is a common practice in our society. People in villages used to accept the decisions of such arbitration. But in cases that come to court, the parties are unable to accept arbitration or mediation.”

Lawyers also have a role: Senior lawyer Dr Sharif Bhuiyan told Agamir Somoy that lawyers are also largely responsible for the low rate of case disposal through ADR. Many lawyers do not want their clients’ cases to be resolved quickly. This is because there is a concern that if a case ends quickly, the number of clients for the lawyer concerned may decrease. He said lawyers must move away from such a mindset and encourage the ADR system.

He further said proper training needs to be arranged for those working as mediators in the country and lawyers involved in resolving cases through the ADR system. In particular, they need to develop skills in using modern technology and artificial intelligence (AI). He also believes regular research is necessary to make the ADR system more effective and relevant to current needs.

Many laws introduced over two decades: To reduce delays in cases and resolve case backlogs, the government added provisions related to the ADR system to the Code of Civil Procedure in 2003. Through the addition of two sections to the Code of Civil Procedure, provisions were introduced for resolving cases through ADR in judicial courts. In 2006, another section was added, giving appellate courts the authority to resolve cases through ADR.

The 2012 amendment further expanded the scope and coverage of the ADR system in the Code of Civil Procedure. Although taking initiatives for compromise and settlement had previously been optional, the amendment made it mandatory. At the same time, provisions were added regarding the appointment of mediators, determining their fees, setting the terms of settlement agreements and informing courts about the outcome of mediation proceedings.

The Arbitration Act was enacted in 2001 to resolve commercial disputes. Subsequently, the Money Loan Court Act enacted in 2003 introduced provisions for resolving cases involving the recovery of money by banks and financial institutions through mediation. Sections 22, 23, 24, 25 and 38 of the law contain provisions related to mediation. In 2010, another section was added to create an opportunity for mediation in Money Loan Court cases at the appeal or revision stage as well.

The Dispute Resolution (Municipal Areas) Board Act was enacted in 2004 and the Village Courts Act was enacted in 2006, giving local authorities the power to resolve minor civil and criminal cases through compromise and settlement. Section 210 of the Labour Act enacted in 2006 also incorporated limited provisions for compromise and settlement.

In 2013, the Legal Aid Services Act was amended to add a new section. The section empowered district Legal Aid officers to resolve disputes through alternative methods.

According to Dr Sharif Bhuiyan, although provisions for compromise and settlement have been incorporated into laws, these provisions are not accepted as a means of resolution in most cases. Although courts give the parties time to seek a solution under these legal provisions, the parties or the lawyers concerned simply use up the time. They do not seek any means of resolving the dispute.

ADR also at Supreme Court Legal Aid Office: Recently, the Supreme Court Legal Aid Office was given the authority to resolve cases through compromise and settlement under the ADR system. Chief Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury approved the move.

The laws under which this compromise and settlement process can be applied include Section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 2023; Section 5 of the Parents Maintenance Act, 2013; Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 2018; Section 11(c) of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, 2000; Sections 143, 447, 448, 323, 324, 325, 354, 379, 380, 381, 406, 417, 420, 494, 500, 501 and 511 of the Penal Code; Sections 8, 9, 12, 39, 42 and 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877; and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

This is happening. Since 2020, semiconductor companies have announced more than $770 billion in private investment across 160 projects in the United States. These projects include chip manufacturing, advanced packaging, raw materials, manufacturing equipment and research.

Meanwhile, China has also taken initiatives to increase its capacity in semiconductors, artificial intelligence and other strategic technologies. The country’s new five-year plan is expected to prioritize the entire supply chain for integrated circuits or chips.