Although the commission was formed to help modernise the laws and the judicial system, the BNP-led government never accepted a single recommendation, nor did it seek the commission's expert advice while passing 185 laws during its tenure.

The Law Commission Amendment Act of 2001 made it mandatory for the parliament to place a report on implementation of the Law Commission's recommendations in its first session of every year. Even that was not followed, said a commission high official. Such an utter disregard for the law sprang from a lack of political will, the official said.

Most of the recent laws were framed primarily to serve the ruling parties' political purpose, commission officials said. "But whether those served the interest of the country is something we should look into," said an official.

For instance, the Anti-corruption Commission (ACC) Act was framed under public pressure. After the ACC was formed in 2004, it could not be made effective till February this year because the act had been grossly flawed. To make the ACC effective, the current caretaker government had to amend the act.

Similarly, Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission (Berc) formed under an act of 2003 has yet to become effective even after four years of its existence.

Important laws like the Money Laundering Prevention Act, and the Money Loan Court Act also had to be amended within a short time of promulgation. The highly politicised Gram Sarkar Act 2003 is also now in the process of being repealed.

Some laws are straight up controversial. For instance, the law to extend the retirement age for judges has been so controversial that it ended up intensifying political conflict in the country. A 2004 law increasing the number of women's seats in the parliament to 45 from 30, by scrapping the provision of direct elections to those seats, also intensified political conflicts.

Law Commission officials noted they do not expect governments to accept all recommendations of the commission. But by ignoring the commission completely, it has been made ineffective despite its legal expertise.

"We make our recommendations keeping in mind that the rule of law and the judiciary have to be upheld. But political governments consider laws keeping in mind political issues," said a top official of the commission.

"Even the few Law Commission recommendations that had been adopted, underwent changes and deviations in the hands of the government," he added.

The commission noted that the law ministry even forgets the recommendations it sent in the immediate past. "Sometimes ministry officials call us asking for a report that we sent earlier. If we tell them that we have already sent it, they become surprised," said an official of the commission adding, "As if this commission is just a post office!"

Before framing a draft, the commission typically discusses with the stakeholders. If the government thinks that the commission has not done enough homework, it can hold additional discussions with the stakeholders and bring necessary changes. "But ignoring the commission totally is such a waste of intellectual and financial resources!" quipped a commission official adding, "We make drafts and never get any feedback, as if we are ghosts!"

In contrast, the Indian Law Commission is an effective one as it works independently without trying to make the ruling party happy, and with a primary goal of upholding the rule of law. The British Law Commission also plays a strong role in drafting laws.

"It's the political attitude of a government that determines how effective a commission would be," the Law Commission high official said.

"Five years ago, the commission drafted a law to modernise consumer rights. But the erstwhile government didn't bother about it. Meanwhile consumers in recent years strongly voiced their opposition to adulteration of food. Much of it could have been avoided if we had such a modern law," he pointed out.

"We prepared a draft for a full-fledged citizenship act, which does not exist in Bangladesh. But that was ignored too. Again we prepared a draft of a law regarding the Contempt of Court Act, but nobody bothered about it although we have been seeing a high frequency of contempt of court charges," he added.

Interestingly while the BNP-led government was ignoring such drafts, its law minister Barrister Moudud Ahmed was giving the public an impression that he was working on such laws.

"By resorting to falsehood, Moudud was giving an impression to the media that he cares a lot about those issues. In reality he didn't bother about the drafts," said the commission high official.

Regretting the fact that the parliament never discussed implementation of Law Commission recommendations, the commission official said while the government did not submit any recommendation to the parliament, parliamentarians themselves were also not aware of their legal bindings.

"The parliament's right to information was undermined through the process," he said.

The three-member Law Commission is headed by former chief justice Mustafa Kamal as its chairman, while Justice Sirajul Islam, and former inspector general of police M Enamul Haq are its members.