BLAD: A Historically Contextualized, Multilingual Dataset of Bangladeshi Legal Acts (1799 to 2025)

We present a collection of open, machine-readable document datasets covering parliamentary proceedings, legal judgments, government publications, news, and tourism statistics from Sri Lanka. The collection currently comprises of 278,621 documents (80.7 GB) across 26 datasets in Sinhala, Tamil, and English. The datasets are updated daily and mirrored on GitHub and Hugging Face. These resources aim to support research in computational linguistics, legal analytics, socio-political studies, and multilingual natural language processing. We describe the data sources, collection pipeline, formats, and potential use cases, while discussing licensing and ethical considerations. This manuscript is at version v2026-07-02-0940.

Legal information in Bangladesh is inaccessible to most citizens. Statutory text is English-only, trained lawyers are concentrated in urban centres, and cloud-dependent AI fails where mobile connectivity is unreliable, a setting in which hallucinated legal text causes direct harm. The system addresses statutory interpretation only; queries that require judicial precedent or case-law reasoning fall outside its scope. We target the statutory access gap by compressing a 9-billion-parameter Gemma-2 teacher into a 2-billion-parameter student through two-phase progressive knowledge distillation. Phase 1 performs supervised fine-tuning on 9,429 quality-gated legal question-answer pairs (65% acceptance from 14,514 generated queries); Phase 2 minimises sparse Kullback-Leibler divergence against the teacher's top-50 per-token logits at temperature tau = 4.0, implemented via QLoRA (4-bit NF4, rank-32 LoRA adapters). Prior legal language models target general legal English; this system specialises in Bangladeshi statutory law. Every response is grounded through hybrid retrieval combining dense semantic search (60%) and BM25 (40%) across 36,029 statutory passages from the Bangladesh Constitution and national legislation. On a 50-query English benchmark, the distilled model reaches ROUGE-L 0.4715 and BERTScore F1 0.5679, a 103% ROUGE-L and 143% BERTScore gain over the retrieval-augmented undistilled baseline (ROUGE-L 0.2323, BERTScore 0.2340). The adapter quantises to 1.6 GB (GGUF Q4_K_M) and runs at 4-8 tokens per second on a Pixel 6 with no network access. Cross-lingual evaluation on 50 Bangla queries yields ROUGE-L 0.4083 and BERTScore 0.8133, showing effective retrieval from Bangla input against an English-only corpus. In a single-evaluator pilot, a practising lawyer rated 50 responses at a weighted mean of 4.16/5 (90% rated 4 or 5), supporting utility beyond text-overlap metrics.

A small language model can receive the governing statutory provision and still answer incorrectly. We test whether fine-tuning on examples containing relevant law improves later use of retrieved law. We curate 2{,}165 bilingual QA records from six Bangladeshi acts and three schedules, then fine-tune Qwen3.5 at 0.8B, 2B, and 4B. Evaluation uses the 2022 and 2023 Bangladesh Bar Council exams in Bangla and machine-translated English, with no retrieval, BM25, or FAISS, scored by strict consistency over three seeded runs. At 0.8B, fine-tuning raises the 2022 English FAISS score from 2 to 34 of 100. Gains at 0.8B and 2B survive paired testing, but the 4B model has no detectable net gain: Bangla improves while several English conditions regress. Fine-tuning also reduces answers that drift from Bangla into mostly English from 44.0--53.2% to 0.2--0.7%, with adjusted $p<.001$ at every scale. Retrieval quality is therefore not the only bottleneck. Small bilingual legal models also differ in how they use supplied law and whether they answer in the requested language. The dataset is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/momahadi/bangladesh-legal-qa-dataset.