Village courts face constitutional test
A disturbing incident in Jamalpur earlier this year has once again put Bangladesh’s village court system under scrutiny, raising questions over whether a mechanism created to deliver quick justice at the grassroots can itself become a source of injustice.
On March 26, a village court proceeding was held at Khalilhata under Kendua Union in Jamalpur over an allegation of cattle theft. During the process, the father of an accused man was allegedly assaulted and humiliated on suspicion of involvement in his son’s alleged offence. A tragedy in the family followed the incident.
While the circumstances of that case require investigation, rights advocates say it highlights a broader concern surrounding informal and semi-formal justice mechanisms operating at the local level-particularly when proceedings are conducted by elected representatives rather than trained judicial officers.
Village courts operate at the union parishad level under the Village Courts Act, 2006.
They deal with specified minor civil and criminal disputes and were established primarily to reduce pressure on the formal judiciary and make justice cheaper and more accessible to rural communities.
A village court generally consists of five members. The union parishad chairman presides over the court, while each side to the dispute nominates representatives to sit on the panel.
The system is promoted as a form of community-based dispute resolution in which people can seek remedies close to home without facing the expense and complexity of conventional litigation.
The Village Courts Act was amended in 2024, increasing its pecuniary jurisdiction from Tk 75,000 to Tk 300,000.
The expansion effectively increased the range of disputes that can be handled at the union level.
Supporters argue that this provides an important alternative in a country where formal courts face large case backlogs and where rural citizens may struggle with the cost of litigation.
The problem, critics say, lies not necessarily in local dispute resolution itself, but in who exercises the judicial power and what safeguards accompany it.
The constitutional controversy primarily revolves around Article 22, which directs the state to ensure separation of the judiciary from the executive organs of the state.
Bangladesh’s subordinate judiciary was formally separated from the executive on November 1, 2007, following the landmark Secretary, Ministry of Finance v Masdar Hossain case and a series of reforms implementing the Supreme Court’s directives.
Yet under the Village Courts Act, union parishad chairmen and members-who perform elected local government and administrative functions-can also take part in adjudicating disputes.
Supreme Court lawyer Sayeed Ahmed told The New Nation that this arrangement raises a structural constitutional issue.
“Village courts raise structural questions because UP chairmen and members who perform executive and administrative roles also preside over judicial proceedings,” he said.
He said combining administrative and adjudicatory responsibilities within the same office could create institutional conflicts and raise questions about impartiality.
Article 35(3) of the Constitution guarantees a person accused of a criminal offence the right to a speedy and public trial by an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law.
Critics of the Village Courts Act argue that having politically elected local representatives adjudicate criminal disputes may sit uneasily with that guarantee.
That argument, however, is now before the High Court and has yet to be finally determined.
Another contentious feature is Section 14 of the Village Courts Act.
The provision expressly prohibits either party from appointing a lawyer to conduct a case before a village court.
The rule was intended to keep proceedings simple, informal and inexpensive. Critics, however, argue that the absence of lawyers can become problematic when a dispute involves criminal allegations, vulnerable parties or people unfamiliar with legal procedures.
The constitutional challenge filed before the High Court invokes, among other provisions, Article 33 of the Constitution, which provides safeguards relating to arrest and detention, including access to legal counsel in circumstances covered by that article.
Whether the prohibition on lawyers under the Village Courts Act violates constitutional protections is among the questions raised by the pending challenge rather than an issue already settled by the court.
The system has also prompted a wider debate over equality before the law.
Article 27 guarantees that all citizens are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law, while Article 31 protects citizens’ right to be treated in accordance with law.
Critics argue that a citizen facing a dispute in an urban area generally has access to the formal judicial system, trained judges and legal representation, whereas many rural disputes may first be channelled through a locally constituted court chaired by an elected political representative.
They question whether such differences can produce unequal standards of procedural protection depending on where a person lives.
Supporters of village courts, however, see the matter differently.
They argue that requiring every minor rural dispute to proceed through conventional courts could itself deny meaningful access to justice by imposing costs, delays and travel burdens that many citizens cannot afford.
The constitutional challenge therefore presents a difficult policy dilemma: how to preserve accessible grassroots justice without weakening the safeguards associated with judicial independence.
The controversy formally reached the High Court earlier this year.
On February 15, Supreme Court lawyer Ishrat Hasan filed a public interest writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Village Courts Act, 2006.
On February 23, a High Court bench comprising Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice Fatema Anwar issued a rule asking the government to explain why the law should not be declared inconsistent with the Constitution and struck down.
The court directed the law secretary, local government secretary and other respondents to submit their replies within four weeks.
Speaking to The New Nation, Ishrat said the petition challenged the law with reference to Articles 7, 22, 27, 31, 33, 35, 109 and 116A of the Constitution.
“We asked the court why the Act should not be declared inconsistent with these constitutional provisions,” she said.
Her petition argues that entrusting judicial functions to union parishad chairmen and members is incompatible with constitutional principles governing judicial independence.
The High Court has not yet declared the law unconstitutional. Its rule requires the government to defend the existing system before the court reaches a final decision.
