When dowry-related assaults that result in "simple injuries" are mandated to be settled outside of the courtroom, questions naturally arise about the rights of victims. Although there is hope that such a move may reduce the huge backlogs of cases plaguing courts, concerns also mount over whether such a move leads to denial of justice.
From this context, let's take a closer look at the implications of this legal development, and where the need for it arises.
In 2012, a woman lodged a case in Chattogram against her husband, alleging that he had tortured her demanding a dowry. After trial, her husband was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison with a fine.
The husband then appealed the verdict to the High Court, but before the appeal could be sorted out, the couple had reconciled and resumed cohabitation.
However, at that time, cases under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act were non-negotiable. Therefore, there was no legal opportunity for compromise.
Still, the High Court overturned the husband's sentence after he promised not to torture his wife in the future.
In such instances, the lack of a legal scope for settlement emerges as a loophole in laws.
In recognition of this, in 2019, the court amended Section 11(c) of Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, 2000, allowing room for settlements in specific cases. As a result, certain family disputes may be settled without a prolonged litigation process.
This was followed by a landmark amendment of Section 21(b) of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act that set off storms across the country. This provision made it mandatory for a woman to undergo a process of mediation before lodging a case for "simple injury" due to dowry.
The move has prompted further concerns about the core objective of the law and whether it undermines the victim's right to justice.
Scope for conserving relationships and case backlogs
The Prevention of Women and Children Repression Act is considered a milestone legal framework in Bangladesh, introducing the harshest penalties for a number of crimes against both women and children, including rape, kidnapping, dowry-related violence and sexual harassment.
The intent of the law was first and foremost to provide expedient justice for the victims.
Over the years, various amendments have been made to this law.
The most debated and contentious of these is "Ordinance 11," gazetted on 25 March 2025. This includes a provision under Section 21(b) which mandates "pre-case mediation" in certain cases.
The objective seeks to ease strain on courtrooms as potential litigants must attempt to resolve the dispute in mediation sessions at a legal aid office before filing a case.
If the process fails to mediate the issue, only then the victim can proceed to court.
This amendment covers specific provisions of nine separate acts, including section 11(c) of the Prevention of Women and Children Repression Act, 2000 and sections 3-4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 2018.
Section 11(c) specifically deals with causing "simple injury" on the basis of dowry-related violence. Therefore, if a woman is physically abused in a way that constitutes a simple injury for dowry, she has to first seek mediation through a legal aid office, rather than directly file a complaint in court.
In this case, a "simple injury" means injury to the body which results in pain, sickness, or any physical weakness.
Concerns and criticisms
In order to learn more about the implications of this amendment, Dhaka Stream spoke to academician and author Mazeda Mujib. "If the victim has strong grounds to file a case, forcing her into the mediation process is an insult," she said.
On the other hand, expressing support for the amendment, Women and Children Repression Prevention Tribunal's Public Prosecutor Monakeb Bahar said, "I think it's a good step. It will reduce the legal complications. This section of law will help dispelling misunderstandings in marital life. If not so, disputes can always be resolved by some type of financial or amicable reconsideration."
However, Mabrook Mohammad, an adviser to local human rights organisation Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), said, "The amendment may lead to reducing the backlog of cases, but also comes with certain risks. Torture for dowry is also often continuous in several circumstances. If the victim is forced into mediation, the victims might be denied justice – financially weak women in particular may be put into a position to be coerced."
Many have spoken out against it. Women's rights activists, lawyers and civil society members have called it "contradictory to the spirit" of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act.
Their main concern is that the provision could deny abused women from the justice they deserve, and may even pressure them to reconcile with abusers.
Highlighting the risks, women's rights activist Marzia Prova said, "The amendment normalises criminal behavior. Simple injury due to dowry is recognised as a criminal offence in the Penal Code, 1860. Bringing this under a process of mandatory mediation reduces the gravity of the crime."
While she acknowledged that mediation could be a means of working through case backlogs, she mentioned two key principles that must be followed. The first is "nonnegotiable" conditions for serious criminal cases, including rape and murder, and the second that all mediation must be voluntary and survivor-led.
Neutrality and the victim's consent
Both supporters and those who oppose the amendment believe that there are good and bad aspects that make it somewhat of a double-edged sword.
According to its supporters, this initiative holds the potential to curb case backlogs and keep families together by leading to the fast resolution of misunderstandings while also curbing frivolous litigation.
On the other hand, women's rights activists' stress that making mediation mandatory risks trivialising criminal offences and could discourage victims from seeking justice.
Given the existing gender power gap in our society, many women, especially victims of domestic abuse, find themselves relatively powerless. As such, mandatory mediation may coax victims towards a settlement, leaving the door open for abusers to capitalise on.
Comments