Bangladesh has long been prone to the adverse impacts of climate change coupled with environmental degradation and pollution due to the ineffectiveness of the enforcement mechanisms available for environment conservation. In this regard, the case of India instructive. India promulgated the National Green Tribunal Act (NGTA) 2010 establishing National Green Tribunals (NGTs) for the speedy and efficient disposal of cases related to the protection and conservation of the environment, natural resources and wildlife.
Environment adjudication in Bangladesh is dealt with by two laws: the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act (BECA) 1995 and the Environment Court Act (ECA) 2010. The ECA does not entail any expertise that one needs to be appointed in the environment courts in Bangladesh whereas, section 4 of the NTGA provides for such provisions given the scientific and technical nature of environmental violations.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star’s Google News channel. The environment courts, constituted under the ECA, fall short on the question of enforcement. For instance, sections 15 and 16 of the BECA provide that the court can impose a maximum fine of taka ten lac (with or without other punishments) for both natural and juristic persons irrespective of the gravity of offences. In a bid to ensure compliance with the judicial decisions, section 26 of the NGTA (India), however, provides that non-compliance with any direction of the NGTA or any of its judgments will result in imprisonment for three years or a fine, which may extend to 10 to 25 crore rupees or both. The emphasis on compliance along with punitive measures is indeed crucial.
Section 4 of the ECA provides that the environment court shall be composed of one Joint District Judge. In reality, s/he plays the role of a part-time judge in the environment courts alongside being a full-time civil court judge with a huge backlog of cases in the civil courts. In contrast, the NGTA (India) provides in section 5(3) that the Chairperson and other judicial and expert members of the tribunal are not allowed to hold any other offices during their appointment which makes the NGT judges much more efficient.
The procedural limitation is minimal in the NGTA (India) as it provides in sections 19(1) and 19(3) that the tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (The Indian Code of Criminal Procedure) or rules of evidence contained in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (Indian Evidence Act). In the context of Bangladesh, however, section 14(1) and 14(6) of the ECA have provided for the application of CPC 1908 and CrPC 1898 in the trial and disposal of environmental suits and cases. The NGT works on internationally recognised principles such as the “polluter pays principle” and “sustainable development” as per section 20 of the NGTA (India), which are absent in our law. Another strength of the NGT is that it promotes ADR mechanisms and out of court settlement procedures.
Even though the NGTA (India) is not free from criticism and shortcomings, its successes outweigh its limitations. Some limitations include having no fixed formula for calculating the compensation, lack of judicial independence as the rules of the NGTA (India) allow bureaucrats to be appointed in the tribunal, lack of resources for the judges of the tribunals and insufficient number of benches. Despite the shortcomings, according to reports, around 36,356 cases have been filed and only 2,404 cases stand pending before the NGT. Bangladesh can take lessons from India and establish an improved version of green tribunals and a new Act.
The writer is LLM candidate, University of Dhaka.