Village courts (VCs)—a formal justice mechanism introduced at the union parishad (UP) level to resolve small disputes—have been around in Bangladesh since the 1960s without being properly utilised. But by evaluating the benefits of VCs, we have found that their popularity is now increasing. Nevertheless, there are some barriers that prevent VCs from operating all across the country.
Researchers: Maria Matin
Timeline: 2018-2019
Status: Completed
Contact: Mehnaz Rabbani
mehnaz.rabbani@bracu.ac.bd
Publications:
Policy Brief: Cost-Benefit Study on Implementing Village Courts in Union Parishads of Bangladesh
Context
In Bangladesh, more than 40 million people live in poverty. A large portion of this population either do not have access to the formal justice system, which is both costly and slow or are unaware of the services available. For these people, VCs offer a quick and less costly alternative solution. It is a state-run rural formal justice system led by the UP chairperson. VC is swift and non-expensive, which sets it apart from the upper court system and makes it convenient for the locals to avail of its services. Hence, an evaluation of its performance and challenges can assist in necessary reformations of the system and help people get justice.
Objectives
The objective of this study was to examine the returns to investment and challenges of activating village courts across all UPs.
Methodology
We conducted the study by using cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and political economy analysis (PEA). The data were collected from the reports on Activating Village Courts in Bangladesh (AVCB) project till 2018, and interviews conducted with beneficiaries in Dhaka and Madaripur, Local Government Division (LGD) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) officials, and high court magistrates. We also conducted separate focus group discussions (FGDs) with AVCB project coordinators and UP members.
Findings and Recommendations
We have found that in a fairly short time, cases reported in VCs every month per UP nearly doubled from 1.37 to 3.00, proving that the popularity of VCs is increasing. VCs compared to Shalish is more efficient since it takes only 40 days to resolve a case in VCs whereas, in Shalish, it takes 6 months. However, oftentimes UP Chairpersons restrain from enforcing jail time in fear of their security or avoid involvement in local political disputes in fear of losing votes. Furthermore, we also found that people sometimes resort to various means (e.g. stalling, migration, etc.) to avoid paying the compensation.
To oversee VC affairs and ensure accountability and proper enforcement, Village Courts Management Committees (VCMC) and Decentralised Monitoring, Inspection, and Evaluation (DMIE) need to be activated. And to improve the capacity of VCs, there should be a permanent position in the system to help with documentation, awareness-building, and communicate with various non-government organisations (NGOs). Furthermore, given that most disputes resolved by VCs are land-related, there should be a clause included in the VC rules to raise the monetary cap at regular intervals with the rising value of the property. And finally, we think that if the paper-based record-keeping system is replaced with one computerised with the help of Union Digital Centres (UDCs), the efficiency and productivity of VCs will increase.
