The Landmark Case of Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v/s Bangladesh on Public Interest Litigation and Environmental Protection in Bangladesh

The words of Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh and others was a seminal
moment in environmental law and Bangladesh’s legal system, expanding the scope
of public interest litigation (PIL) and upholding environmental protection as a
legal duty. The case, initiated by the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers
Association (BELA), was against the Flood Action Plan (FAP-20), a flood control
project in Tangail district.

It highlighted the serious socio-economic and
environmental threats facing the people of the region. BELA, represented by Dr
Mohiuddin Farooque, argued that FAP-20 puts the lives, health and property of
over one million people at risk, challenging the legality of the project under
article 102 of the Constitution. The question of standing is very important, as
BELA asserts its right to act on behalf of its victims. The Supreme Court’s
decision upheld BELA’s status as an “aggressor” and highlighted the state’s duty
to protect the environment as part of its statutory duties.

This decision
established basic legal principles, including the role of judges defending
environmental rights within the limits of human rights and the right to life.
The legacy of this case has developed environmental rights in Bangladesh by
recognizing the right of organizations to protect collective rights and maintain
environmental sustainability as an important element of legal protection.

Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque V. Bangladesh and others

• Case Reference: Civil Appeal No: 24 of 1995
• Parties involved:

  • Appellant: Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque representing the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA)
  • Respondents: The Government of Bangladesh and associated authorities involved in the implementation of the Flood Action Plan (FAP-20)

• Court: The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, specifically within its Appellate Division.

Facts of the Case
Background:
The case arose out of concerns about the environmental and socio-economic
impacts of the Flood Action Plan (FAP-20). A project designed to control floods
in the Tangail district of Bangladesh.

Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) as Secretary General, Dr.
Mohiuddin Farooque filed a writ petition challenging the implementation of the
project, arguing that it threatened the lives, property, livelihood, and
environmental security of over one million people in the affected areas.

He filed the writ petition seeking to show cause to the respondents under both
Article 102(1) and Article 102(2)(a) of the constitution.

Why all the activities and implementation of FAP-20 undertaken in Tangail
District shall not be declared without statutory authority and of no legal
effect.

The ground Advanced by the appellant
in the writ petition

The ground is that the adverse environmental impact of a Flood Action Plan
(FAP-20) affecting the lives, property, livelihood, occupation, and
environmental security of over one million people of Tangail district.

1. Locus standi
   An important legal issue in this case is whether BELA had standing to file the writ petition. The company claims its commitment to environmental protection and standing by the grievances of local people affected by FAP-20. The court has to determine whether the interest of the aggrieved community can be represented in legal action, setting a precedent for public interest litigation in Bangladesh.
   
    




2. Complaints
   The petitioners alleged that the flood action was developed without adequate consultation with the local community and lacked proper environmental safeguards, which could potentially adversely affect the environment and residents’ livelihoods.
   The evidence presented includes local complaints, media reports, and the results of investigations conducted by BELA, highlighting local people’s opposition to the project.
   
    




3. Legal Argument
   Dr. Farooq argued that the constitutional provision of “Any person aggrieved” should be interpreted broadly to include organizations such as BELA that act in the public interest to protect constitutional rights and the environment.
   He asserted that refusing to prosecute such organizations would undermine public duty and the larger goal of establishing a just and equitable society as enshrined in the Constitution of Bangladesh.
   
    




4. Consideration of the Court
   The court discussed the constitutional responsibility of states to protect the environment and ensure sustainable development and procedural aspects of locus standi and the role of public interest litigation in promoting environmental justice.

The case is notable for its contribution to public interest litigation and
environmental law jurisprudence in Bangladesh, particularly regarding the
position of non- governmental organisations to advocate for affected
communities.

Judgment of the Case

The Supreme Court judgment ruled in favour of BELA, recognizing the
association’s standing to file the petition and emphasizing the state’s
constitutional duty to protect the environment. It orders the government to take
preventive measures to mitigate the project’s adverse environmental impacts.

Key Points of Judgment

• 
  Point 1: Discussion on locus standi and the court’s rationale for allowing BELA to file the petition.

  • Point 1 of the judgment deals with the issue of locus standi. The court elaborated on the right of organizations like the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) to file writ petitions.
  • BELA’s active involvement and significant efforts in environmental issues recognized the organization as “any aggrieved person” under Article 102 of the Constitution.
    
     




• 
  Point 2: Broader Implications of Public Interest Litigation

  • On this point, the appellant was treated as an “aggrieved person” not because of personal grievances but due to important constitutional issues raised. Specifically:

  • The court recognized its position because the case involved an international treaty affecting the territory of Bangladesh and its potential violation of fundamental rights, such as:

  • Freedom of movement throughout Bangladesh
  • The right to live and settle anywhere in the country
  • The right to vote
    
     




• 
  Point 3: Who Can Make a Writ Petition and In Which Situation

  • In this point, two main principles were established:

  • Threats to Fundamental Rights: Any citizen can invoke jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution if there is a threat to fundamental rights.
  • Serious Constitutional Issues: The applicant would first qualify as an “aggrieved person” if they raised substantial constitutional issues.
    
     




• 
  Point 4: Constitutional Provisions Related to Environmental Protection

  • In point 4, the court explored constitutional provisions concerning environmental protection and the right to life.
  • It highlighted that environmental degradation posed a direct threat to fundamental rights, including the right to a healthy and safe environment.
  • The court’s interpretation linked environmental issues to a broader framework of human rights, emphasizing the duty of the state to protect and improve the environment for the benefit of present and future generations.
    
     




• 
  Point 5: Evidentiary Requirements for Public Interest Litigation

  • Point 5 addresses the evidentiary requirements specifically for public interest litigation, along with procedural aspects of litigation.
  • The court noted that public interest cases require a more flexible approach, whereas traditional cases require strict adherence to the rule of evidence.
  • This adaptability is crucial for effectively addressing complex environmental issues and ensuring that substantive justice prevails over procedural technicalities.
    
     




• 
  Point 6: Conclusion on the Judiciary’s Role in Safeguarding Constitutional Rights

  • The article argues that, although there is no specific constitutional provision in Bangladesh for environmental protection, Articles 31 and 32 include the protection of the environment by implication of the right to life.
  • It emphasizes that a healthy environment free from pollution is essential for the enjoyment of the right to life.

  • Environmental Rights Violation: Any damage to the environment violates this right.
  • Interest in Environmental Law Enforcement: BELA has a genuine interest in the enforcement of environmental laws, concerned with the prevention of environmental hazards and giving legal standing to file a writ petition to protect aggrieved persons.

Bibliography:

1. Razzaque, J. (2004). Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Kluwer Law International.
2. Chowdhury, S. R. (1998). Environmental Rights in Bangladesh: Legal, Institutional, and Administrative Aspects. Asian Journal of Environmental Management, 6(2), 78–95.
3. Rahman, M. A., & Islam, M. T. (2002). Locus Standi and Public Interest Litigation: Expanding Horizons in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Law, 6(1), 37–54.
4. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA). (n.d.). Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh. Available at BELA’s website.
5. Asian Development Bank (ADB). (2000). Environmental Governance in Bangladesh. Available at ADB’s website.
6. Supreme Court of Bangladesh. (1996). Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1995: Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh and Others.
7. Mahmud, M. H. (2006). Judicial Review and Constitutionalism in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST).
8. Khan, M. F. H. (2018). The Rise of Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 12(2), 184–202.

Written By: Jayashri Rani Mohontha (student)
Department of Law and Justice, North East University Bangladesh