Legal Aid Services (Amendment) Ordinance 2025

On 1 July 2025, the Legal Aid Services (Amended) Ordinance, 2025 came into effect. The newly enacted ordinance introduced both pre-case and post-case mediation, either physically or virtually by mutual compromise. The most crucial part of this ordinance is its schedule which incorporates mandatory pre-case mediation in matters of family disputes, negotiable instruments, rent control, and controversially dowry violence, among others.

Notably, "mediation" means flexible, informal, non-binding, confidential, non-adversarial and consensual dispute resolution process in which the mediator shall facilitate compromise of disputes in the suit between the parties without directing or dictating the terms of such compromise. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) already makes the mediation process mandatory by an amendment of 2003, incorporating section 89A. The amendment of 2012 also includes section 89(D) and 89(E) to allow cases filed before 2012 to get the same benefit of mediation with a retrospective effect and later, the CPC amendment of 2017 integrated Legal Aid Officers into this mandatory mediation process under CPC (Chowdhury). However, the procedure still remains the same, adding another layer to civil litigation, and successful resolution of civil disputes through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism remains rare.

The first impression of the fresh ordinance may seem visionary, but in practice, the outcome appears less promising. Although mediation has long been part of the legal framework, its effectiveness in delivering measurable outcomes remains inadequate. However, The National Legal Aid Service Organisation estimates that about 90 per cent of disputes can be resolved through mediation; which aligns with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16: 'Access to Justice for All,' by making legal aid more accessible, affordable and people-friendly. Despite official claims that mediation can resolve up to 90% of disputes, there remains a lack of transparent, verifiable data from the courts or the Legal Aid offices to validate these outcomes.

By and large, the state has been quite unsuccessful to promote public awareness and understanding of the mediation process. Additionally, there lies significant shortage of judicial manpower, as the judges of civil and criminal courts remains the same and has not been separated yet and there's only one Legal Aid Office per district. Therefore, mandatory mediation puts overwhelming pressure on already stretched judicial officers and adds further procedural complexity to litigation. Hence, the practical impact remains limited as mediation does not prohibit parties from withdrawal, adjustment and compromise of the suit under Order XXIII of the CPC. 

To ensure meaningful and effective mediation, it is essential to address key social and ethical concerns. Mediators must remain sensitive to issues such as gender-based power imbalances, family violence, and the dynamics of fear, silence, and control that disproportionately affect women. In the context of Bangladesh, mediators often go beyond a purely facilitative role and engage in evaluative mediation. While they may offer suggestions or assessments, it is important to note that they do not determine the outcome of disputes or impose decisions on the parties involved (Chowdhury).

Many mediators are appointed without any ADR-specific qualifications, as there is currently no national framework or accreditation standard for mediators in Bangladesh. This regulatory gap can result in inconsistent outcomes and may erode the trust of parties in the mediation process. Moreover, despite the growing reliance on digital tools, a significant portion of rural and economically disadvantaged litigants lack access to the internet or required digital literacy to participate effectively in virtual mediation. This not only hampers inclusivity but also raises concerns around privacy breaches and potential discrimination. Compounding the issue, most courts in the country are still not adequately equipped to facilitate widespread virtual proceedings.

Whether the ordinance becomes a visionary tool for justice or merely an added procedural burden will depend not on legal mandates alone, but on meaningful investment in mediator training, technological infrastructure, and the cultivation of public trust.

The writer is official contributor, Law Desk.