The judiciary, burdened with more than 4.7 million pending cases, has once again received limited attention in the proposed 2026–27 national budget, according to stakeholders in the justice system.
They say that when the judiciary was separated as an independent branch on 1 November 2007, it had about 1.57 million pending cases.
In nearly two decades, the number of cases has more than tripled, but the increase in judges, court infrastructure, technological capacity and budget has not kept pace.
As a result, access to justice is becoming increasingly delayed for litigants.
In the proposed budget, the allocation for the Law and Justice Division stands at Tk2,187 crore, including Tk291 crore for the Supreme Court.
However, development allocation for the judiciary has been reduced from Tk265.85 crore in the current fiscal year to Tk188.72 crore in the new proposal.
Legal experts say this decline raises questions about the state’s priorities, as the judiciary is central to ensuring constitutional rights and the rule of law.
Law Minister Asaduzzaman recently said at a discussion that the judiciary generates around Tk15,000 crore in revenue annually, while receiving only about Tk2,200 crore in budget allocation, calling it a reflection of institutional weakness.
At present, 2,339 judges are working in the country, including 101 in the High Court Division and five in the Appellate Division.
More than 6.59 lakh cases are pending in the High Court and over 41,000 in the Appellate Division, with the rest pending in lower courts.
Despite repeated recommendations from the Law Commission and other bodies to appoint at least 5,000 judges, the proposal has not been implemented.
Officials and legal experts say the current number of judges is insufficient to clear the backlog, which may take decades to resolve.
Infrastructure conditions are also weak in many districts. Several courts lack proper judge chambers.
In 23 districts, Chief Judicial Magistrate court buildings have not yet been constructed. Many existing court buildings are old and overcrowded, with limited space for litigants and lawyers.
Judicial officials also say that budget constraints affect basic operational needs, including computers, printers, registers and other essential supplies.
They add that digital case management and e-filing systems require stronger investment.
Budget analysis shows that although allocations have increased in recent years in nominal terms, the judiciary’s share of the total national budget remains well below 1 per cent.
Senior Supreme Court lawyer Syed Mamun Mahbub said financial independence is crucial for the judiciary.
“Lower courts are under severe pressure due to excessive caseloads. Without more judges, new court buildings and adequate funding, justice cannot be ensured,” he said.
Experts note that international human rights frameworks also emphasise judicial independence and adequate financing as essential elements of the rule of law.
Supreme Court lawyer Saiful Islam Saif said increased allocation could improve court efficiency, speed up case disposal and support the implementation of e-judiciary systems.
Former Supreme Court judge Shahidul Islam said limited funding is a major reason for delays in case disposal. He called for a separate budget framework and a dedicated Supreme Court secretariat to strengthen the system.
