Dr. Mohiuddin Vs. Bangladesh and others

In this case, the main contention was whether an alleged contaminated imported milk powder endangered or may endanger the life of the people living in the country and thus violated the fundamental right of right to life.

Relevant Citation
Writ Petition No. 92 of 1996; 1996 BLD 490; 48 DLR (1996) 438.

Relevant Laws and Principles
- Article 18(1), 31 and 32 of the Constitution of Bangladesh

- Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950

- Public Health

Ruling
While interpreting Articles - 31 and 32, which ensured the protection of Life, the court was of the opinion that the right to life included protection of health and normal longevity of a man free from threats of man-made hazards unless that threat is sanctioned by law. The court stated that the right to life is extended to the enjoyment of pollution-free water and air. In reference to the Indian case of Subash Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar reported in MANU/SC/0106/1991: AIR 1991 SC 420, the court held that if anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.

Takeaways
Through bringing the threat from pollution under the ambit of protection to life guaranteed under article 32 of the Constitution, the court opened the gate of future climate change litigations. Since climate change will have an irreversible impact on the lives and livelihood of the people, it will be easier to bring litigations related to climate change under the ambit of article 32 of the constitution.