Legal experts on amended ordinance: Mandatory arbitration to increase sufferings of victims

The Legal Aid (Amendment) Ordinance 2025 came into effect on July 1. Under this amendment, the interim government has made arbitration (mediation) mandatory for resolving disputes under five civil and four criminal laws—nine in total. As a result, no case under these laws can be filed directly in court; instead, the parties must first approach the local Legal Aid Office for mediation.

According to legal experts, this mandatory arbitration process could become a barrier to justice, causing additional harassment for litigants and further prolonging the path to legal resolution.

The ordinance, issued by the President, amended the Legal Aid Act 2000 (Act No. 6). It mandates resolution through Legal Aid Office arbitration for disputes under the following legal provisions:

Section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 2023

House Rent Control Act, 1991

Partition-related civil disputes under the jurisdiction of Assistant Judges

Pre-emption disputes under Section 96A of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950

Pre-emption disputes under Section 24A of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949

Parental maintenance disputes under Section 8 of the Parents Maintenance Act, 2013

Dishonored cheque cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for cheques up to BDT 500,000)

Dowry-related complaints under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 2018

Dowry-related violence under Section 11(g) of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, 2000

Dr. Asif Nazrul, a legal adviser, told Views Bangladesh “The Legal Aid (Amendment) Ordinance 2025 introduces mandatory arbitration before filing cases in five civil and four criminal offenses. These are compoundable offenses anyway, where parties can settle before judgment. The aim is to prevent unnecessary harassment of complainants and accused alike. If mediation fails, the parties still have the option to go to court.”

Attorney General Md. Asaduzzaman told Views Bangladesh “The ordinance aims to reduce false cases, prevent innocent individuals from being wrongly implicated, ease the pressure on courts, and lessen harassment for justice seekers. If these compoundable disputes go straight to court, it will only increase the case backlog.”

However, many practicing lawyers disagree. They argue that mandatory arbitration under these provisions will obstruct access to justice. Victims may lose interest due to the lengthy process at the Legal Aid Office, and there's potential for increased harassment during investigations.

Senior Supreme Court lawyer Ahsanul Karim told Views Bangladesh:
“In Dhaka’s 37 CMM courts, managing even these cases under regular procedure is already overwhelming. How can a single judge-led Legal Aid Office handle such an enormous volume? That office will be burdened with mediating family disputes, dowry complaints, women and child abuse cases, dishonored cheques, and civil partitions—all at once. This will create a complex and chaotic situation. I believe this ordinance will result in greater harassment and hardship for the general public.”

Supreme Court lawyer and human rights activist Fauzia Karim Firoz said:
“Imagine a woman suffering abuse over dowry—under this ordinance, she must first go to the Legal Aid Office instead of a doctor. By the time arbitration fails and she can file a case, physical evidence of abuse may be lost, weakening her case. Women are already marginalized in family and social settings—this ordinance makes them even more vulnerable. Previously, a victim could immediately seek legal protection. Now, she must wait through mediation first.”

Ruhul Quddus Kajal, Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association, remarked:
“Referring a person to the Legal Aid Office means initiating a new process before the case begins. This will cause delays and complications, extending the time for justice and increasing costs. The victim may have to bear dual expenses—first for arbitration, then for court proceedings. This ordinance should be reconsidered and revised accordingly.”

Supreme Court senior lawyer and President of Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh, Manzill Murshid, told Views Bangladesh:
“Disputes under the Family Courts Act, House Rent Control Act, partition cases, pre-emption matters, parental maintenance, cheque dishonor, dowry prohibition, and dowry-related abuse are extremely sensitive and complex. Forcing mandatory arbitration before court proceedings in such matters is illogical and unacceptable. This ordinance must be repealed or amended urgently through proper consultation with stakeholders.”