Years in trial—Where is the accountability for delays?

The law sets a deadline of 180 working days. In reality, it takes an average of nearly three years and seven months—around 1,370 days—to conclude a case of violence against women and children. That is roughly seven and a half times the statutory timeframe. Each case, on average, comes up for hearing 22 times. A study by the Bangladesh Supreme Court, based on an analysis of 4,040 cases heard by 46 Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunals in 32 districts between January and June this year, paints this picture. The study also found that the conviction rate in these cases was just 3 percent.

So, where does the 180-day deadline stand?

Section 20(3) of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, 2000, states that a tribunal must conclude a trial within 180 working days from the date it receives the case for trial. The same provision also says that once the hearing begins, it should continue on every working day until the proceedings are completed.

But does a case collapse once those 180 days have passed? Does the accused automatically walk free? A recently published High Court judgment in Md. Saiful Islam alias Pavel vs. State says no. According to the High Court, the deadline is directory rather than mandatory. Failure to conclude a trial within the prescribed period does not automatically invalidate or suspend the judicial proceedings.

Pavel’s case is an important case study of the issue. A case was filed in January 2008 over allegations that a student of Eden College had been raped in 2007 and subsequently forced to undergo an abortion. Charges were framed in July that year. But the trial was not completed within the prescribed 180 working days. In 2011, Pavel filed a writ petition with the High Court, arguing that the trial could not continue because the statutory deadline had expired. He also argued that a provision requiring reports to be submitted to the Supreme Court and the government within 30 days, explaining why the trial had not been completed within the stipulated period, had not been followed. Ultimately, on June 7, 2023, the High Court dismissed the rule, clearing the way for the trial to continue.

Pavel’s case, however, cannot be treated as an isolated incident. A 2025 report, citing Supreme Court data, said 148,314 cases filed under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act were pending before courts across the country. Of those, 35,262 had been awaiting disposal for more than five years.

A rape case involving a nine-year-old girl in Dhaka’s Khilkhet illustrates an even longer delay. More than nine years after the case was filed, the trial had still not been concluded. Charges were framed, but there had been no verdict despite 96 hearings. Six of the 10 witnesses in the case had failed to appear before the court, which was cited as one of the major reasons for the delay. The court had even issued arrest warrants against the witnesses, but they still could not be produced.

Another example comes from Habiganj. A case was filed in December 2021 over the rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl. The trial had still not been completed as of June 2026. With the case remaining unresolved nearly four years after charges were framed, the High Court summoned the judge of the relevant Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal and sought an explanation for the delay.

Noakhali offers another example of prolonged proceedings. In one attempted rape case, the trial had not been completed even after 17 years. At the time, around 7,013 cases were pending before the district’s two Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunals. Court officials cited the failure to produce witnesses and a shortage of judges among the reasons behind the backlog.

In other words, the 180-day provision exists on paper, but cases in practice can drag on for five years, nine years or even 17 years. The Supreme Court-BRAC study, which found an average duration of 1,370 days, puts this gap between law and reality into stark numerical perspective.

This brings us to another important question: Who is responsible when a trial is not completed within 180 days? Who is responsible for ensuring that a witness appears in court? If an investigation is delayed, where is the accountability? Whether a case is stalled at the level of the judge, the prosecution, the investigating agency or another party, is there any regular mechanism to monitor where and why the proceedings are being held up?

At a discussion organised by BLAST in June 2026, the lack of effective oversight of ongoing cases, prolonged delays in obtaining DNA and forensic reports, and shortcomings in witness protection were also identified as some of the key reasons for delays in trials. The organisation recommended technology-based e-case monitoring and case supervision mechanisms at the district and upazila levels.

The question, therefore, is no longer simply whether a trial has been completed within 180 days. The larger question is this: When proceedings continue beyond the 180-day deadline, are the reasons for the delay being documented? Are the relevant authorities being informed? And is anyone being held accountable?

The law has set the clock at 180 days. Reality shows that the wait can stretch to 1,000 days—and sometimes close to 3,000. Somewhere between these two figures lies the gap between the promise of speedy justice and the prolonged wait of those seeking it.