Today is National Legal Aid Day. The Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, through the Law and Justice Division, observes the day officially. Yet this day is not merely a formal occasion; it is a reflection of the state’s fundamental commitment that no person shall be deprived of justice because of poverty. A justice system becomes meaningful only when it moves beyond the pages of law books and creates real impact in people’s lives. Legal aid is one of the most important means of turning that promise into reality.

The idea of legal aid is rooted in the principle of equal access to justice. In a democratic state, the rule of law cannot be established merely by enacting laws; those laws must also be within the reach of all citizens. Economic inequality may exist in society, but inequality in access to justice is unacceptable. If an indigent person cannot obtain legal assistance, understand court procedures or appoint a lawyer, justice remains only a paper right. Legal aid, therefore, is not charity, it is an effective instrument for realising a citizen’s constitutional rights.

The Constitution of Bangladesh provides a firm foundation for this idea. Article 27 recognises equality before the law and equal protection of law. Article 31 guarantees the right to the protection of law. Article 33 ensures the right of an arrested person to consult and be defended by a lawyer, while Article 35 provides safeguards for a fair trial. These provisions embody the philosophy that justice is for all—not only for those who can afford it.

To translate this constitutional promise into practice, Bangladesh enacted the Legal Aid Services Act, 2000. Through the national legal aid framework, the state provides legal assistance at public expense to people who are financially insolvent, socially disadvantaged or otherwise unable to access justice.

However, the original law had its limitations. Although it was enacted to ensure legal assistance for the poor, in practice its operation often remained application-dependent and administrative in nature, rather than being fully established as a rights-based service. Weak institutional capacity, limited publicity, shortage of manpower, technological gaps and procedural delays created serious challenges. Although panel lawyers were appointed, adequate monitoring of their performance, punctuality, communication with clients, case updates and professional conduct was not always ensured.

At present, legal aid services are being carried out through Directorate The legal aid authority provides three broad categories of services: legal advice and assistance in cases that may be filed, have already been filed or are pending before courts; mediation services, including honorarium for appointed mediators or special mediators; and other support, including litigation costs and incidental expenses. As a result, a justice seeker can receive advice at the initial stage of a dispute, explore settlement through mediation and, where necessary, obtain assistance in conducting a case.

One of the most important aspects of legal aid is that it forms part of a non-adversarial justice process. Mediation or alternative dispute resolution allows parties to move away from conflict and towards dialogue. It creates space for judges, officials and mediators to listen with empathy. In this process, no compulsory order is imposed on either side; rather, solutions are reached through mutual consent, practical understanding and a humane approach. It shows that state officials and judicial actors can listen to ordinary people with patience and dignity.

Pre-case mediation has made this system even more effective. Bangladesh’s justice system has long been overburdened with pending cases. According to available data, in 12 project districts, the average monthly number of cases filed from January to August 2025 was 1,695.25. After the project began, from September 2025 to March 2026, this average dropped to 824.29—an approximate reduction of 51.38 percent. During the same period, the monthly average of pre-case dispute resolution rose to 674.67, an increase of 384.50 percent compared with the previous level.

By March 2026, District Legal Aid Offices had resolved 199,957 disputes through ADR. These figures demonstrate that, if properly implemented, mediation can significantly reduce pressure on the courts and ensure quicker remedies. When disputes are resolved through dialogue outside the courtroom, time, cost and mental stress are reduced. Justice seekers also begin to understand that justice does not always mean litigation, repeated appearances and endless waiting; it can also mean settlement, dignity and timely relief.

Legal aid is also playing a significant role for prisoners. Many detainees cannot build an effective defence because of poverty or legal complexities. In this context, legal aid helps ensure justice by appointing lawyers for indigent prisoners. From January 2012 to March 2026, legal aid was provided to 137,937 helpless prisoners. This is a meaningful initiative for protecting human rights and making the right to justice effective.

The service is particularly important for women, children and marginalised communities. Socio-economic imbalance, domestic violence, fear, silence and control are realities that often prevent vulnerable people from seeking justice. Legal aid creates an opportunity to recognise and address these realities. Through the helpline 16699, from 28 April 2016 to March 2026, legal advice was provided to 201,577 people, including 49,039 women, 150,157 men, 2,330 children and 51 persons of the third gender. This shows that legal aid has become not only a litigation support mechanism but also an important social service for information, advice and initial protection.

Recent data also shows that from 2009 to March 2026, District Legal Aid Offices, Labour Legal Aid Cells and the Supreme Court Legal Aid Office together provided legal assistance to 1,437,736 people. Through the disposal of nearly 200,000 cases, the number of beneficiaries reached almost 400,000. These achievements prove that with proper planning, manpower, technology and awareness, legal aid can bring meaningful change to the justice system of Bangladesh.

The recent legislative reforms introduced through the amendment ordinances of 2025 and 2026, later converted into amended Act, have opened a new chapter in legal aid. Through linguistic refinement, clarification of implementation procedures, restructuring of sections and subsections and rational redistribution of administrative powers, the amended legal framework has created opportunities to make legal aid more coordinated and practical. While earlier initiatives expanded mediation, institutional structures and the scope of services, implementation remained limited. The new law appears to recognise these realities and provides direction for making the legal aid authority more effective, accountable and people-friendly.

A positive feature of the new law is that it allows compromise and mediation both before a case is filed and while a case is pending. Mediation may take place physically or virtually. Most importantly, mandatory pre-case mediation has been introduced in certain matters, including family disputes, negotiable instruments, house rent control and dowry-related violence. In sensitive matters such as maintenance of parents, pre-case mediation can be logical and effective because such disputes involve not only legal remedies but also relationships, responsibilities and human values.

Another strength of the law is that early resolution outside court can reduce time, expense and psychological pressure. If mediation agreements are given the status of a court decree or final order, enforcement of settlements will become easier. The possibility of appointing special mediators, restructuring the national management board and receiving support from government and non-government organisations may further expand legal aid. Extension of services for expatriate citizens, supervision of panel lawyers and mediators, digital applications and administrative reforms can also modernise the system.

Yet these opportunities must be approached with caution. The law must not become another lengthy step on the way to litigation. It must remain a simple path to justice and remedy. If mandatory mediation becomes an additional gate before entering court, it may create new delays for poor people. In particular, where allegations involve dowry or violence against women, forcing a victim to sit in mediation with the accused may undermine justice because of power imbalance, fear, social pressure and the culture of compromise.

Capacity is another major concern. If a single District Legal Aid Office is expected to handle a large number of pre-case disputes, the pressure on officers, judges and the justice system will increase. Without national standards, training and certification for mediators, the quality of decisions may vary widely. Recognition and certification should prioritise competent individuals. Mediation is not a mere formal meeting; it requires the combined application of law, psychology, social reality, communication skills and humane sensitivity.

Virtual applications, hearings and mediation are welcome initiatives, but they require clarity, publicity and training. Poor and rural people may lack internet access, devices, privacy and digital literacy. A digital system must not create a new privileged class of beneficiaries. It should bring marginalised people closer to justice, not push them further away.

In this context, lawyers have a crucial role to play. Within the limits of professional ethics and rules, they can guide indigent justice seekers towards the legal aid authority. One honest piece of advice from a lawyer may open the door to justice for a poor person. The Bar Council and local bar associations should introduce mandatory pro bono hours, legal aid training, mediation training and ethical monitoring. The duty of a lawyer is not to push a vulnerable client into quick compromise, but to ensure that the client’s interest, safety and consent are protected.

The government also has greater responsibilities. First, effective legal aid desks, mobile clinics and paralegal networks should be established beyond district offices, reaching upazila and union levels. Second, special safeguards and alternative routes must be ensured in mediation involving violence against women, dowry and power imbalance. Third, the performance of panel lawyers and mediators should be brought under a public database. Fourth, applications, approvals, lawyer appointments, case progress and outcomes should all be brought under online tracking. At the same time, offline access must remain open for those who cannot use digital services.

Most importantly, legal aid requires effective publicity. Mere banners and ceremonial programmes are not enough. Regular awareness activities must be carried out in court premises, union parishads, upazila offices, educational institutions, prisons, labour areas, markets, village courts and community spaces. People must know where to go for legal aid, how to apply, what documents are required, which number to call and where to complain if they face problems. Publicity must be simple, local and people-centred.

National Legal Aid Day is therefore not only a day of celebration; it is also a day of self-assessment. How many poor people have we helped overcome fear of courts? How many women have received safe legal advice? How many workers have found a path to recover their dues? How many prisoners have received a fair opportunity of defence? The answers to these questions will determine the success of the system.

Justice becomes meaningful only when it is accessible to all. Legal aid is the humane bridge to that accessibility. To strengthen this bridge, the law, institutions, judges, lawyers, government and people must work together. The duty of the state is to open the door. The duty of lawyers is to show the way. The duty of the justice system is to preserve public trust.

On National Legal Aid Day, our pledge should be clear: justice is not a privilege for the few; it is the right of every human being.

The writer is an advocate of the Bangladesh Supreme Court. He can be reached at [email protected]