The Harsh Reality of Drug Control and the Justice System

There are 446,000 drug cases, 22 new tribunals, but not a single permanent judge to fill a chair. It may sound like a metaphor or an unrealistic film plot, but this is the harsh reality of Bangladesh’s drug control and justice systems.

On September 3, a government gazette announced the establishment of 22 new tribunals to try drug-related offences across the country. The list included four tribunals in Dhaka Metropolitan Area, four in Chattogram and three in Cox’s Bazar, along with others in different districts. On paper, the move appeared to be a major legal reform aimed at decentralising the justice system and speeding up case disposal.

However, the optimism lasted only three days. A notification issued on September 6 reversed the picture with a single instruction: no separate judicial posts had been created for the new tribunals. Instead, existing additional district and sessions judges would operate them as an “additional responsibility” alongside their regular duties. Although the new courts have been formally established, no permanent judges have been appointed to run them. As September 2026 has passed without a permanent judge being appointed to any of the 22 tribunals, a fundamental question remains: who will hear this enormous backlog of cases?

The Supreme Court’s statistics show how difficult it will be for judges to handle sensitive drug cases on top of their existing workload. According to the court’s data, 4,791,921 cases were pending in the subordinate courts as of March 31, 2026. Of these, 2,387,989 were criminal cases. Drug cases account for a particularly serious part of this backlog, with 446,915 cases pending nationwide.

More concerningly, at least 166,633 cases involve offences that could carry sentences ranging from a minimum of five years in prison to the death penalty if the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt. On July 16, a new provision under Section 44(a) of the amended Narcotics Control Act specified that cases carrying sentences of five years to the death penalty should no longer be tried in ordinary courts. Separate tribunals were to be established to ensure their speedy disposal. Yet the government has not provided a clear answer about who will handle these serious cases without dedicated judges.

Some may believe that appointing new judges alone would solve the problem. However, the administrative obstacles run much deeper. Under the Bangladesh Judicial Service Formation Rules, a designated committee must approve the creation of judicial posts. Without its approval, the Finance Ministry cannot create new posts or allocate the necessary funds.

A meeting of this committee was recently held at the Supreme Court building, where a unanimous decision was taken to create 232 new judicial posts for different courts across the country. According to an official statement from the Supreme Court administration, the committee approved 72 posts for tribunals dealing with child rape cases: 64 in the 64 districts and eight in metropolitan areas. These judges would hold the rank of district and sessions judge.

The committee also decided to create 65 family appellate court judge posts at the same rank, including one in each of 61 districts and four additional posts in Dhaka, based on the volume of cases. In addition, it approved 54 posts for land survey appellate tribunals, one for each of the 54 tribunals already established nationwide. It also decided to create 41 additional posts for land survey tribunals, supplementing the 13 joint district judge-level posts already in place across the 54 tribunals.

The total of 232 proposed judicial posts offers some hope for strengthening the judiciary. The committee also advised the Law and Justice Division to complete the formalities for creating supporting staff and determining the office equipment required for these posts, then forward the proposal to the Ministry of Public Administration and the Finance Division.

This raises a reasonable question: if the authorities can move quickly to approve 232 posts for courts dealing with child rape, family appeals and land survey disputes, why is the proposal to create posts for just 22 drug tribunals still caught in bureaucratic red tape? The lack of judges is not the only problem. A serious logistical crisis is also approaching. Under the new notification and amended law, around 166,000 cases carrying sentences of five years to the death penalty must be transferred from ordinary courts to the new tribunals within 60 days.

Yet the new courts have no dedicated court clerks or other staff. They have not even been provided with basic facilities, such as cabinets to keep sensitive case files secure. The 60-day transfer period, which began on September 3, is due to end in the first week of November.

Legal experts have described the looming paralysis as a “November crisis”. Once the deadline passes, a lawyer seeking bail or a hearing for a client at an old court may be told that the case has been transferred to a new tribunal under the law. But when the lawyer goes to the tribunal, there may be no staff available to receive the files or conduct proceedings. This administrative and logistical vacuum could stall bail hearings and witness examinations in thousands of cases, placing an unbearable burden on people seeking justice.

Another deeply concerning aspect of the legal reform lies in Section 32 of the amended law. Under this provision, the physical seizure of yaba or other drugs will no longer be the only form of evidence in drug cases. If there is suspicion, a court may immediately block a suspect’s e-wallet, bKash, Nagad or even cryptocurrency accounts. Personal Facebook Messenger and Telegram chat histories may also be used directly as evidence in court.

This raises a critical question: who will scientifically verify the authenticity of digital chats and accounts? The new tribunals have no dedicated digital forensic laboratories, and the judges assigned to them have not received specialised training to assess such evidence.

If an innocent person’s bKash or Nagad account is mistakenly or deliberately blocked, there is no clear answer about where they can seek a swift remedy. The law also appears to lack clear safeguards against such action. Without proper technical facilities and specialised training, the risk of serious abuse is high. The massive transfer of cases over the next 60 days could make the situation even worse.

India has faced similar problems with judicial backlogs. In 2022, it established 35 fast-track courts under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. However, rather than simply issuing notifications and putting up signs, the authorities appointed 25 new judges and 25 court clerks and provided separate courtrooms. As a result, the rate of disposal of drug cases reportedly increased by up to 40 per cent within a year, allowing more than four out of every 10 cases to be resolved more quickly.

Pakistan has also successfully operated a separate court system for the Anti-Narcotics Force. In contrast, Bangladesh has established new tribunals without dedicated judges or even basic infrastructure. This is a clear policy failure.

Home Minister Salahuddin Ahmed has rightly said that strict control of drugs and gambling can help reduce other crimes. The argument is sound in principle, but effective crime control requires a functioning, accessible and efficient justice system.

Three immediate measures are needed to address the judicial backlog. First, permanent judicial posts must be created without delay. The huge backlog cannot be cleared by assigning additional duties to judges who already have heavy workloads. Second, the tribunals need fully equipped courtrooms and modern digital case-management systems. Third, the number of judges must be increased substantially in proportion to the number of cases.

Considering Bangladesh’s population and the growing number of pending cases, the country needs at least 10,000 additional judges. A clear roadmap should be prepared immediately to appoint at least 5,000 of them.
Establishing the tribunals was undoubtedly a positive initiative by the government. But the empty chairs must now be filled with qualified judges. Otherwise, the reform will only add more case files to court corridors without restoring public confidence in the justice system.

People waiting anxiously outside prison gates understand this reality all too well. Without a judge in the courtroom, they are unlikely to receive justice. Instead, they may face one hearing date after another, with no end in sight.

The author is a journalist and columnist.
rintuanowar.com