Dr. Mohiuddin Vs. Bangladesh and others and Sekandar Ali Mondal Vs. Bangladesh and others

In this particular case, the activities and implementation of FAP-20, a project undertaken in the District of Tangail was questioned. It was alleged that the Flood Control Plan will have environmental ill, with around 3 lacs of people likely to be adversely affected and uprooted within the project area and the extent of adverse impact outside the project area may encompass more than a million human lives, property, livelihood, their environmental security, the natural resources and natural habitats of men and other flora and fauna.

Relevant Citation
Writ Petition No. 998 of 1994 with Writ Petition No. 1576 of 1994; 1998 BLD 216; 50 DLR (1998) 84.

Relevant Laws and Principles
- Article 23, 24, 28, 31, 32, 40, 42 and 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh

- Embankment and Drainage Act, 1952

- Principle of Sustainable Development

- Principle of Prior Notification and Consultation

Ruling
It was submitted that the FAP-20 project will cause damage to soil, destruction of natural habitat, fishes, flora and fauna and create drainage problems threatening human health and worsen sanitation and drinking water supplies and cause environmental hazards and ecological imbalance. It was contended that the affected people were not afforded any opportunity of being heard and the objections and protests raised by the people were ignored by the respondents who were duty-bound to take into consideration the fate of the people, directly, indirectly, and causally affected by the implementation of FAP-20. Such action was in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 31, 32, 40, and 42 of the constitution and also contradicted the National Environment Policy, 1992; which stated that in the context of the environment, the Government recognizes that the active participation of all the people at all level is essential. Although the court was of the opinion that in its present stage, it was not practical to stop the work, it was of the contention that in implementing the project, the state cannot violate the provisions of laws of the land. The court ordered that the project be carried complying with all the requirements of laws of the land and gave some directions to the state, among which, one was to ensure that no serious damage to the environment and ecology is caused by the project activities.

Takeaways
Through the order to continue the project by complying with the legal requirements regarding the protection of the environment, the court ensured that concern for the development does not step over the concerns for the environment and its preservation. Future climate change litigations can take lessons from this precedent to oblige the government to put the considerations of preservation and protection of the environment into all the projects they undertake.