Bangla in Courts, Dignity in Justice

The people of this country learned to cherish their mother tongue at the cost of blood. So, to us, Bangla is not merely a tool of communication but our identity and the foundation of our collective existence. Each year on 21 February, we remember those who sacrificed their lives to defend its dignity. Yet, more than seventy years after the Language Movement and over five decades after independence, Bangla has not secured its full and rightful place in the highest courts of the land.
Although Bangla is widely used in subordinate courts, English continues to dominate the higher judiciary. For ordinary citizens, justice often appears veiled in an unfamiliar language. A litigant who speaks and dreams in Bangla frequently finds that the decisive stages of justice unfold in English. When the language of judgement is not the language of the people, justice risks becoming distant and abstract.
The court is the ultimate guardian of rights. From filing a case to conducting hearings, from delivering judgement to executing the decision, every stage of the judicial process depends upon language. If that language is not readily understood by the people, access to justice becomes limited in practice, even if guaranteed in principle.
The Constitution declares Bangla as the sole state language of the Republic. In order to give effect to this constitutional commitment, the Bangla Language Implementation Act was enacted in 1987. The expectation was clear: Bangla would gradually become the working language of state institutions, including the judiciary. Although new laws and official documents began to be drafted in Bangla, judicial practice did not undergo a corresponding transformation.
In 1991, in the Md. Hasmat Ullah v. Azmeri Bibi case, the scope of the Bangla Language Implementation Act came under scrutiny. When a subordinate court rejected an objection filed in English, the matter reached the High Court Division. The Court upheld the continued permissibility of English under the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. Although the Act was not declared unconstitutional, the ruling effectively preserved the dominance of English in judicial proceedings. No appeal or review followed, and the practical impact of the Act was significantly weakened.
A fundamental limitation of the Act was its failure to clearly state that its provisions would prevail over other conflicting laws. This legislative ambiguity allowed existing procedural frameworks to continue operating largely in English. As a result, a law intended to strengthen Bangla in state institutions remained, in many respects, symbolic.
In 2011, the Bangladesh Law Commission recommended the use of Bangla at all levels of the judiciary. In 2012, amendments to the High Court Rules formally permitted the use of both Bangla and English in the High Court Division and the Appellate Division. There was no longer any procedural barrier to filing appeals in Bangla or writing judgements in Bangla. However, legal permission has not translated into consistent institutional practice. Judgements delivered in Bangla remain limited in number.
The history of Bangla in the higher judiciary reflects intermittent progress rather than steady development. Before 1990, no judgement of the High Court Division had been delivered in Bangla. In 1990, eighteen years after independence, Justice ARM Amirul Islam Chowdhury initiated the use of Bangla in court proceedings. In 1998, a bench comprising Justice Kazi Ebadul Haque and Justice Md Hamidul Haque delivered a landmark judgement in Bangla in the Nazrul Islam v. State case. These decisions marked important milestones, affirming that Bangla could function effectively as a judicial language.
Yet such initiatives were not sustained consistently. For extended periods, Bangla remained absent from higher court judgements. It was only after 2007 that renewed efforts gained momentum. Several judges, including former Chief Justice ABM Khairul Haque, delivered a significant number of judgements in Bangla. Between 2007 and 2011, hundreds of civil, criminal and constitutional cases were decided in Bangla. In recent years, especially during the month of February, some judges have once again delivered orders and judgements in Bangla, symbolically honouring the spirit of the Language Movement.
These efforts demonstrate that the use of Bangla in higher courts is neither impractical nor legally prohibited. The remaining barriers are largely institutional and attitudinal rather than constitutional.
It is undeniable that English plays a crucial role in international legal discourse, comparative jurisprudence and academic research. Legal professionals must engage with global scholarship, much of which is written in English. Mastery of English strengthens professional competence and international engagement. However, the legitimacy of a justice system ultimately depends on its accessibility to its own citizens. Justice becomes meaningful only when people can understand the reasoning behind decisions that affect their lives.
When judgements are delivered exclusively in English, ordinary litigants may know the outcome but struggle to comprehend the reasoning. The legal analysis, principles applied, and implications for future action often remain obscure. This linguistic distance weakens public confidence and limits meaningful participation in the justice process.
The obstacles to broader use of Bangla are real. Procedural laws contain ambiguities. Legal terminology in Bangla requires further development and standardisation. There is a shortage of comprehensive translations of older statutes and precedents. Many authoritative judgements and academic texts are available only in English. Institutional training in drafting judgements in Bangla remains limited. These challenges cannot be ignored.
However, they are not insurmountable. Legal terminology can be standardised through coordinated academic and judicial initiatives. Authoritative translations can be commissioned. Judicial training programmes can strengthen drafting skills in Bangla. Digital databases can facilitate bilingual access to precedents. What is required is not merely legal permission but policy commitment and administrative planning.
Judges and lawyers share a collective responsibility in this transformation. Judges possess the authority to shape courtroom practice through their own example. Lawyers influence litigation culture through the language in which they draft pleadings and present arguments. Together, they can gradually normalise the use of Bangla without excluding the functional use of English where necessary.
Some critics argue that making Bangla more prominent in higher courts might reduce professional prestige or create technical limitations. This concern is misplaced. Professional excellence is defined by legal knowledge, analytical depth, clarity of reasoning, and ethical integrity, not by the language used. Language is a vehicle for legal thought; it does not determine the quality of that thought.
The language of the court is not a mere procedural formality. It is central to the administration of justice. When judgements are delivered in Bangla, the law becomes more transparent and accessible. Citizens can understand their rights and obligations more clearly. Legal awareness expands. Confidence in the judiciary strengthens.
The use of Bangla in the courts is not simply a matter of linguistic preference. It is rooted in constitutional principle and historical sacrifice. The Language Movement was not only about cultural identity; it was about dignity, recognition, and participation. Extending Bangla into the higher judiciary is a continuation of that unfinished commitment.
This does not require the exclusion of English. A balanced approach can accommodate both languages: English for international engagement and comparative reference, and Bangla for accessible and citizen-centred justice. The objective is not linguistic isolation but democratic inclusion.
To ensure accessibility and quality in the justice system, the expanded and systematic use of Bangla in the courts is essential. Institutional guidelines, judicial leadership, and coordinated reform can transform isolated initiatives into sustained practice.
If we truly honour the spirit of 21 February, justice must speak in the language of the people. Ensuring the dignified presence of Bangla in every courtroom is not merely symbolic; it is a necessary step toward deepening democracy, strengthening public trust, and realising the constitutional promise of justice for all. The time has come to give Bangla its full and rightful dignity throughout the judiciary.

__________________________
The writer is an advocate and researcher. He can be reached at [email protected]