Law Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs

  • Received 28.11.2025,
  • Revised 26.02.2026,
  • Accepted 31.03.2026
  • Published 03.04.2026
Download article Download article
Volume 16, No. 1, 2026
  • access to justice; comparative law; digital transformation; judicial efficiency; legal innovation
  • https://doi.org/10.63341/naia-chasopis/1.2026.32
  • Pages 32-46

This scientific and research-based paper took a qualitative and doctrinal approach to analysing the possibility for reforming Bangladesh’s criminal justice system through the systematic use of technology. The study was based on the recognition that Bangladesh’s criminal justice system is hampered by pervasive delays, inefficiency, and accessibility issues, which create strong hurdles to justice and contribute to a decline in public confidence. This paper viewed the use of e-justice as a scientific challenge in institutional modernisation and legal integration, requiring comparative analysis and context-sensitive adjustments. The key argument proposed is that digital change, when guided by comprehensive legislative frameworks and institutional preparedness, may be a powerful facilitator of criminal justice system reform. The study extracted scalable, legally acceptable, and context-relevant mechanisms that may drive Bangladesh’s reform effort through a comparative analysis of lessons learnt from India, the United Kingdom, and the United States, all of which have adopted distinct e-justice frameworks. The objective of this study was to provide an evidence-based, whole-of-government roadmap for Bangladesh’s adoption of e-justice, with a focus on law reform, digital infrastructure, institution building, and accessible justice for marginalised people. The study included a comparative investigation of law and combined law, policy, and technology. Combining doctrinal and comparative insights, the study contributed to the area of knowledge on legal digitalisation in the Global South and provided policymakers, judicial authorities, and development partners with practical advice. It showed how contextually appropriate technological reforms can improve public trust, uphold human rights, and strengthen procedural justice, offering a roadmap for the long-term, technologically driven reform of criminal justice system of Bangladesh

References

  1. Abu Taher, M., & Jamaluddin, S.Z. (2022). Enhancing access to justice through e-judiciary in Bangladesh: A study. UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 13(2), 317-344. doi: 10.32890/uumjls2022.13.2.13.
  2. Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2023). Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.
  3. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. (2025). Nearly half of Bangladeshi homes still without internet access: BBS. Retrieved from https://www.thedailystar.net/business/news/nearly-half-bangladeshi-homes-still-without-internet-access-bbs-3869531.
  4. Bangladesh Judiciary. (2022). World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Prises 2024. Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/stocktaking/Prises/Prises/Details/17066901664655388.
  5. Berk, R.A., Kuchibhotla, A.K., & Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. (2021). Improving fairness in criminal justice algorithmic risk assessments using optimal transport and conformal prediction sets. arXivhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09211.
  6. Bhattarai, P., & Chaudhary, S.K. (2025). Digital justice in Nepal: A South Asian perspective on legal-tech reforms, global benchmarks and transformative policy pathways. International Journal of Trends in Emerging Research and Development, 3(2), 11-16. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15037154.
  7. Caro, V.U. (2025). Five ways digital technologies are transforming courts and access to justice. Retrieved from https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/governance/five-ways-digital-technologies-are-transforming-courts-and-acces.
  8. Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence. Journal of Cybersecurity, 8(1), article number tyac014. doi: 10.1093/cybsec/tyac014.
  9. Chen, E. (2024). Remote proceedings have enhanced California’s courtrooms and improved court participation. Retrieved from https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/remote-proceedings-have-enhanced-californias-courtrooms-and-improved-court-participation.
  10. Committee of Public Accounts. (2023). Progress on the courts and tribunals reform programme: Twenty-sixth report of session 2022-23. Retrieved from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmpubacc/1002/report.html.
  11. Council of Europe / European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2024). European judicial systems CEPEJ evaluation report: 2024 evaluation cycle (2022 data). Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/special-file.
  12. Dahiya, A., & Banerjee, S. (2024). Modernizing India’s legal system: The need of electronic system in case management and e‑Courts. ShodhKosh: Journal of Humanities and Social Science Innovation, 5(6), 2467-2473. doi: 10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.i6.2024.3013.
  13. European Commission. (2025). Communication on DigitalJustice@2030. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/digitalisation-justice/communication-digitaljustice2030_en.
  14. Haq, M.Z., Ayub, Z.A.B., & Abdel Rahman, A.R.A. (2025). GDPR and Bangladesh’s data privacy laws: A comprehensive analysis. International Journal of Public Law and Policy, 11(2), 192‑209. doi: 10.1504/IJPLAP.2025.145300.
  15. Hasan, M.I., & Mia, B. (2021). Initiation of virtual court system during COVID-19 pandemic and e-judiciary: Challenges and way forward. Daengku: Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Innovation, 1(1), 8-17. doi: 10.35877/454RI.daengku385.
  16. Hasan, M.I., & Rupa, F.J. (2021). Digitalisation of Bangladesh judiciary and access to justice. Asian Journal of Social Science & Legal Studies, 3(3), 49-58. doi: 10.34104/ajssls.021.049058.
  17. Haviland, G. (2025). Technology for remote and hybrid hearings: Lessons from NCSC’s Court Innovation LabJudicature, 109(1).
  18. HM Courts and Tribunals Service. (2025a). Modernising courts and tribunals: Benefits of digital services. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/modernising-courts-and-tribunals-benefits-of-digital-services.
  19. HM Courts and Tribunals Service. (2025b). Common Platform: A modern digital case management system for the criminal justice system. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/case-studies/common-platform-a-modern-digital-case-management-system-for-the-criminal-justice-system.
  20. HMCTS. (2024). HMCTS Reform Programme: Common Platform factsheet. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmcts-reform-crime-fact-sheets/fact-sheet-common-platform.
  21. Inter‑American Development Bank. (2025). Digital technologies for better justice: A toolkit for action. Retrieved from https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Digital-Technologies-for-Better-Justice-A-Toolkit-for-Action.pdf.
  22. Islam, M.T. (2022). An assessment of privacy regime in Bangladesh: A legal analysis. UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 13(2), 77-108. doi: 10.32890/uumjls2022.13.2.4.
  23. Islam, M.Z., & Uddin, M. (2023). The important role of comparative legal research. Journal of Asian and African Social Science and Humanities, 9(3), 31-43. doi: 10.55327/jaash.v9i3.316.
  24. Jubaer, S. (2025). Digital transformation in the justice system: E‑courts, case management, and legal accessibilitydoi: 10.5281/zenodo.17127616.
  25. Kekül, H., Ergen, B., & Arslan, H. (2021). A multiclass hybrid approach to estimating software vulnerability vectors and severity score. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 63, article number 103028. doi: 10.1016/j.jisa.2021.103028.
  26. Latif, M., & Innash, A.R. (2024). Digital transformation in the justice system: Enhancing efficiency and accessibility of legal services. Journal of Indonesian Law, 8(1), 56-78. doi: 10.18326/jil.v5i2.3468.
  27. Liu, J. (2021). Privacy risks in using facial recognition for contact tracing. Retrieved from https://www.jtl.columbia.edu/bulletin-blog/privacy-risks-in-using-facial-recognition-for-contact-tracing.
  28. Maralbaeva, A. (2024). Evolution of e-justice platforms: From ICT in courts to digital justice portalsInternational Journal for Court Administration, 16(2), 34-52.
  29. Ministry of Justice. (2022). Ministry of Justice digital strategy 2025. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministry-of-justice-digital-strategy-2025/ministry-of-justice-digital-strategy-2025.
  30. National Informatics Centre. (2024). National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). Retrieved from https://www.nic.in/project/national-judicial-data-grid/.
  31. National Informatics Centre. (2025). National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). National Informatics Centre. https://www.nic.gov.in/project/national-judicial-data-grid/.
  32. Peay, J., & Player, E. (2018). Pleading guilty: Why vulnerability matters. Modern Law Review, 81(6), 929-957. doi: 10.1111/1468-2230.12374.
  33. Press Information Bureau. (2024). E‑Courts Mission Mode Project. Retrieved from https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2085127&reg=3&lang=2.
  34. Rafah, J. (2023). E‑Judiciary in Bangladesh. The Daily Star. Retrieved from https://www.thedailystar.net/law-our-rights/news/e-judiciary-bangladesh-3266741.
  35. Saxena, P. (2022). Access to justice for women litigants in family courts vis-à-vis prospect of a virtual court system: A post-pandemic study with special reference to the family court in Ahmedabad district of Gujarat, India. Kathmandu School of Law Review, 11(1), 37-51. doi: 10.46985/kslr.v11i1.2213.
  36. Sheikh, T., Afroj, S., & Iqbal, F. (2024). Admissibility of digital evidence in court: In light of changes in Bangladesh evidence law. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI), 11(8), 1617-1627. doi: 10.51244/IJRSI.2024.1108124.
  37. Thakran, H. (2025). Towards a tech-savvy judiciary: A comparative study of evidentiary flexibility in India, the UK, US, Canada, and Singapore. Journal of Informatics Education, 5(2). doi: 10.52783/jier.v5i2.2803.
  38. The Pew Charitable Trusts. (2021). How courts embraced technology, met the pandemic challenge, and revolutionised their operations. Retrieved from https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2021/12/how-courts-embraced-technology-met-the-pandemic-challenge-and-revolutionised-their-operations/.
  39. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2022). Online caselist, judicial monitoring dashboard and Amar Adalat (MyCourt) app launched. Retrieved from https://www.undp.org/bangladesh/press-releases/online-caselist-judicial-monitoring-dashboard-and-amar-adalat-mycourt-app-launched.
  40. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2025). UNDP supports digital transformation of Bangladesh’s judiciary to enhance independence and efficiency. Retrieved from https://bangladeshnewsgazette.com/undp-supports-digital-transformation-of-bangladeshs-judiciary-to-enhance-independence-and-efficiency/.
  41. Vo, A., & Plachkinova, M. (2023). Artificial intelligence and criminal justice in the US: Ethical and legal challenges. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 21(4), 550-567. doi: 10.1108/JICES-11-2022-0101.
  42. World Bank. (2024). Five ways digital technologies are transforming courts and access to justice. Retrieved from https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/governance/five-ways-digital-technologies-are-transforming-courts-and-acces.
  43. Yesmen, N., & Ahmed, N. (2022). The nature and challenges of cyber policing: A study on the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Dhaka, BangladeshAsian Journal of Sociological Research, 5(1), 210-214.
  44. Zhao, Y. (2024). Enhancing access to digital justice: Digital governance of dispute resolution and dispute prevention in online commercial activities. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 15(2), 273-304. doi: 10.1093/jnlids/idae001.