3. OBJECT OF THE RESEARCH PAPER
There are some objects to study this topic. This are-
1. The ways and means by which competent legal aid could be brought within the
means of poor litigants.
2. To suggest the recommendations this with necessary modification in the light
of circumstances prevailing in our society would best meet our judicial needs.
3. The factors responsible for delay to access to get justice.
4. The enlargement of the jurisdiction of the courts to try cases with more
competencies
4. FINDING
Though the Legal Aid Services Act, 2000 is a landmark to the legal empowerment of the disadvantaged
and vulnerable people, it is not free from criticisms. The Act is full of loopholes and weaknesses in the
whole mechanism of legal aid services. On a careful analysis of the Legal Aid Services Act, 2000 the
following loopholes are worth mentioning:
a) The Act does not specify cases for which legal aid can be provided.
b) The process of consideration of application can be identified as another source of delay in meeting the
ends of justice as the members of the Board and Committee who will consider the applications are often
very busy. As a result the applicant does not get justice when really needed.
c) In comparison with the number of legal aid seekers, the number of meetings held to consider these
applications fall short of the requirement, as the Board holds at least one meeting in every three months
and the Committee holds one meeting in every month.
5. d) The procedure of the selection of the application is not clear in this Act, i.e.,
the basis of consideration, the criteria for selection and above all the requisite
number of members to give consent to such granting of application is not clear.
e) The members of the committees being from the upper strata of society, they
often fail to realize the depth of miseries of these persons and cannot acquaint
themselves with their problems.
g) In the Upazilla and Union committees, the inclusion of Chairman and 14 other
members makes the system more complex as it will be seen in most of the cases
the legal aid seekers are the victim of the activities of these people.
6. RECOMMENDATION
In our old Civil Justice System earlier the case management processes had
been excruciatingly slow, costly and time consuming. In view of that we
had to take a hard and critical look in our existing procedural laws and legal
systems. Acknowledging the necessity, the Government of Bangladesh has
taken a project know as Legal and Judicial Capacity Building Project
having its objective mainly-
i) To improve the quality and pace of the Civil Justice delivery system.
ii) To reduce backlog.
iii) To make the system more accessible to the user particularly to the
disadvantaged, women and children.
7. iv) To institutionalize resolution of disputes out of courts.
It is heartening to note that the World Bank and other international development
partners have been providing necessary fund and support to us for stifle of
awareness and proper monitoring, follow up the measure, fixed accountability
and responsibility, two meeting in a month, the ceiling and determining of the
means of the litigants, making the government answerable, encouraging the poor
to use the law as an instrument of redress and putting g the government in
pressure by public interest litigation where government fails to response to need
of the poor for legal aid.
8. METHODOLOGY LIST OF CASES:
1. Dr. Neelima Ibrahim vs. Bangladesh, 32 DLR (1980) 201.
2. Bandhu Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India (1943)3 SCC 161.
3. Ridge vs Baldivin 1964 AC 40 (1963) 2 ALL ER 66 (HL).
4. Goody vs. Goody (1968) 3 All ER 611.
5. Burial Das vs. State 23 BLD (2003).
9. 6. State vs. Shukkur Al., 9 BLC .
7. BLAST vs. Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 7578 of 2003.
Legislation cited:
1. The Legal Aid Act, 2000
2. The Legal Aid Rule, 2001
3. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
5. The Constitution of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh
