Enforcement of right to life through Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh and India : a comparative study

By: Farhad Uddin Ahmed Bhuiyan September 13, 2019 no comments

Law and Legal Matters

By: Farhad Uddin Ahmed Bhuiyan

September 13, 2019

no comments

Enforcement of right to life through Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh and India : a comparative study

Enforcement of right to life through Public Interest litigation in Bangladesh and india: a comparative study

FARHAD UDDIN AHMED BHUIYAN

Declaration

I hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge I did never take resort to plagiarize any part of this research without acknowledging and giving proper foot notes. Indeed, my trying and efforts some time have got stumbled with the vastness of the topic, my limitation to browse the all-out points for the scholastic research too.

…………………………………..

Farhad Uddin Ahmed Bhuiyan

Advocate

Supreme Court of Bangladesh

List of Abbreviations:

DLR	Dhaka Law Reports
BLD	Bangladesh Legal Decision
AIR	All India Reports
PIL	Public Interest Litigation
MLR	Mainstream Law Reports
DIU	Dhaka International University
SC	Supreme Court
AD	Appellate Division
BELA	Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association
CCF	Children Charity Foundation
ASK	Ain O Shalish Kendra
HRPB	Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh
BNWLA	Bangladesh National Women Lawyers’ Association
BLAST	Bangladesh Legal Aid Services & Trust

Table of Content

Sl. No.	Title	Page No.
a)	Acknowledgement	i
b)	Declaration	ii
c)	List of abbreviations	iii
d)	Table of contents	iv
1	Chapter : One	1
1.1	Introduction	1
1.2	Objectives of Research	2
1.3	Research Methodology	3
1.4	Scope & Limitation of Research	4
1.5	Abstract of the chapters	4
2	Chapter : Two	5
2.1	Historical Background & Development of PIL	5
2.2	Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh & India	9
2.3	Objectives & Subject matter of PIL	21
2.4	Challenges & Limitation of PIL	24
2.5	Organization & Person(s) working to enforce right to life	25
3	Chapter : Three	26
3.1	Expanding the meaning of concepts of different relevant terms	26
3.2	Interpreting aggrieved person(s) in the broad sense.	29
3.3	Concept of public interest litigation	32
3.4	Meaning and concept of right to life	34
3.5	Meaning of locus standi in PIL	40
4	Chapter :Four	42
4.1	Comparative Development and Study of Public Interest Litigation in Various Jurisdictions	42
4.2	Constitutional analysis on Public Interest litigation in Bangladesh	42
4.3	Public Interest Litigation in India	43
5	Chapter :Five	47
5.1	Role of Public Interest Litigation to enforce the right to life	47
5.2	Widening the range of the right to life	48
6	Chapter: Six	54
6.1	Comparative study on enforcing right to life through PIL in Bangladesh and India	54
6.3	Recent development of the concept of right to life in Bangladesh	69
7	Chapter: Seven	70
7.1	Findings	70
7.2	Recommendations	72
7.3	Conclusions	73
	Bibliography	74

Chapter : One

1.1 Introduction

Right to life is the most cherished and pivotal fundamental human rights around which other rights of the individual revolve and, therefore, the study assumes great significance. The study of right to life is, indeed, a study of the Supreme Court as a guardian of fundamental human rights. Article 32 is the celebrity provision of the Constitution of Bangladesh and occupies a unique place as a fundamental right. It guarantees right to life to citizens and aliens and is enforceable against the State. The new interpretation of right to life in Maneka Gandhi’s case has ushered a new era of expansion of the horizons of right to life. The wide dimension given to this right now covers various aspects which the founding fathers of the Constitution might or might not have visualized.

The above stated revolution in the basic concept makes it imperative that the concept of right to life should be examined a new with reference to development, meaning, width and depth, along with judicial interpretation, justification for such liberal Interpretation, and relation of Article 32 with the provisions of Article 102 and Directive Principles of the State Policy and International Human Rights Instruments.

Further, the protection of this right is burning topics of the day. Hence, an attempt has been made in this essay to examine the modern day standards adopted for protecting the right to life.

The Indian Supreme Court has created major reforms in the protection of human rights. Taking a judicial activist role, the Court has put itself in a unique position to intervene when it sees violations of these fundamental rights. In India the guardian of democracy is not the legislative wisdom but the wisdom of the highest court of the land. The court has acted as protector of the workers, and at time played the role of legislator where labor legislation is silent or vague.

The Supreme Court, as the arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution, serves not merely the negative purpose of checking excesses in judicial practice, but also the vital and dynamic function of modulating the life of the nation. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh is the guardian of the Constitution under whose protective wings the nation has prospered and grown to greatness.

Thus, the law as seen in the wordings of the enactment gets a dynamic and wider scope in day to day events by the legal processes advanced by judicial creativity.

‘Right to life’ is the modern name for what have been traditionally known as ‘natural right.’ It is the moral right which every human being everywhere at all times ought to have simply because of the fact that in contrast with other beings, he is rational and moral. It is the fundamental right which enable a man to chalk out his own life in the manner he likes best. Right to life is one of the rights of the people of Bangladesh preserved by the Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 and enforced by the High Court and Supreme Court under article 102 and 103 respectively. In this research, I willdiscuss the modern and liberal interpretation given to the concept of right to life by the Bangladesh and Indian Judiciary.

We know most of the reported and many unreported PIL cases, filed from its inception until April 1994, have been examined. Interviews with petitioners and lawyers have revealed much about PIL, and have resulted in the discussion of many unreported cases.

Whatever the outcome, PIL has necessitated the recognition that every Bangladeshi citizen should have access to justice.

In this thesis, I have tried to bring to light and focus on the widening range of right to life, comparative study of right to life, including the historical background and concept of the right to life

1.2: Objectives of Research:

1) In order to get the whole meaning regarding the concept of the right to life.

2) To know what is the main motive of the cases given in the Articles given in the

constitution of Bangladesh and India regarding the right to life.

3) To evaluate in detail the different dimensions of Article 21ofIndian Constitution and article 32 of the constitution of Bangladesh.

4) To examine the views of Supreme Court regarding the field of the rights such as the right to life in detail.

5) To make the comparison of right to life with other countries of the world

such as with India, the united states of America etc.

6)To identify and find out the ways out to enforce the spirit of right to life in wide extent.

7)To get the thorough idea of ongoing practice regarding the protection of right to life in Bangladesh and India.

8)To look for the best way to make sure the easiest enforcement of right to life throughout the world including Bangladesh.

1.3 : Research Methodology:

There are accepted truths and theories in all field of knowledge. The intellectuals of the society are always inclined to probe for facts of the empirical world

and confirm the proved truth of his investigations by acceptors correcting the existing theories. Such probing is termed as research.

According to the Webster’s International Dictionary –

“Research is a careful critical inquiry or explanation in seeking facts or principles; diligent investigation in order to ascertain something”

Research methodology is a systematized investigation to gain new knowledge about the phenomena or problems after finalization of subject matter or study the next step is to Research Methodology – the method, of data collection. Data Collection is the process of obtaining valuable information for the purpose of research. To carry into effect in this research, I have tried to follow the guidelines of my supervisor and at the very outset, I have set my action and research plan and then I made a table of contents by the guidance of my Supervisor. In fact, the way and method by which I tried to carry out my research monograph was very comfortable to me.

I tried to get data, select the sources of information, talk to the resource persons of this matter. Also I stormed my brain to have the filtered thought an d idea to put into this thesis. Likewise, all the modern approaches of research in particular was followed by me. Studying and analyzing books, journals, resources, etc. were my fuel of thinking to come into the conclusion at large in respect of the research. Above all. Concerted efforts, whole-hearted trying on the objective analysis of my assigned topic of research helped me to reach my triggered point of wrapping up the research monogram.

1.4 Scope and limitation of research:

There had been satisfactory scope of twisting the topic. In fact, analysis of the vital points and issues were pleasing to me as all these were more or less known to me. To travel into the bottomless pit of knowledge, I had to struggle a bit but had been able to win over with fruits of my research work.

In this research, I had to stick to gun with the point of right to life. That is why, to browse the idea a lot was quite difficult but I made it apt for my research to carry the day.

1.5 Abstract of the chapters:

In chapter I, I have tried to put into the research motto, way outs, scope and limitation including the overall summary of the topic I am going to carry my research.

More particularly, in chapter 2, I have preferred to outline the historical pros and cons of public interest litigation side by side giving a layout information of public interest litigation.

More so, chapter 3 of my research monograph talks about plainly the meaning of concepts of different relevant terms.

In fact, chapter 4 of this research paper covers the out and out portfolio of PIL in India.

Moreover, in chapter 5, I have tried to focus on and speculate the role of public interest litigation so far as it relates to enforce the right to life.

Likewise, chapter 6 tells about the real comparison on enforcing right to life through PIL between Bangladesh and India.

Accordingly, chapter 7 is the final product of my research works which illuminates all out factors, recommendations, suggestions and epilogue of my hard-earned knowledge on this research in order to open the gate ways and windows for the best and utmost protection of right to life in Bangladesh.

Chapter: 2

2.1 Historical background and development of Public Interest Litigation:

The Indian PIL is the improved version of PIL of U.S.A. According to “Ford Foundation” of U.S.A., “Public interest law is the name that has recently been given to efforts that provide legal representation to previously unrepresented groups and interests. Such efforts have been undertaken in the recognition that ordinary marketplace for legal services fails to provide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others”. The emergency period (1975-1977) witnessed colonial nature of the Indian legal system. During emergency state repression and governmental lawlessness was widespread. Thousands of innocent people including political opponents were sent to jails and there was complete deprivation of civil and political rights. The post emergency period provided an occasion for the judges of the Supreme Court to openly disregard the impediments of Anglo-Saxon procedure in providing access to justice to the poor.

Public Interest Litigation popularly known as PIL can be broadly defined as litigation in the interest of that nebulous entity: the public in general. Prior to 1980s, only the aggrieved party could personally knock the doors of justice and seek remedy for his grievance and any other person who was not personally affected could not knock the doors of justice as a proxy for the victim or the aggrieved party. In other words, only the affected parties had the locus standi (standing required in law) to file a case and continue the litigation and the non affected persons had no locus standi to do so. However, this entire scenario gradually changed when the post emergency Supreme Court tackled the problem of access to justice by people through radical changes and alterations made in the requirements of locus standi and of party aggrieved. The splendid efforts of Justice P N Bhagwati and Justice V R Krishna Iyer were instrumental of this juristic revolution of eighties to convert the Apex Court of India into a Supreme Court for all Indians. Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and P. N. Bhagwatirecognised the possibility of providing access to justice to the poor and the exploited people by relaxing the rules of standing. In the post-emergency period when the political situations had changed, investigative journalism also began to expose gory scenes of governmental lawlessness, repression, custodial violence, drawing attention of lawyers, judges, and social activists. PIL emerged as a result of an informal nexus of pro-active judges, media persons and social activists. This trend shows stark difference between the traditional justice delivery system and the modern informal justice system where the judiciary is performing administrative judicial role.

The first reported case of PIL in 1979 focused on the inhuman conditions of prisons and under trial prisoners. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar , the PIL was filed by an advocate on the basis of the news item published in the Indian Express, highlighting the plight of thousands of under trial prisoners languishing in various jails in Bihar. These proceeding led to the release of more than 40,000 under trial prisoners. Right to speedy justice emerged as a basic fundamental right which had been denied to these prisoners. The same set pattern was adopted in subsequent cases.

A new era of the PIL movement was heralded by Justice P.N. Bhagawati in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India. In this case it was held that “any member of the public or social action group acting bonafide” can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts or the Supreme Court seeking redressed against violation of a legal or constitutional rights of persons who due to social or economic or any other disability cannot approach the Court. By this judgment PIL became a potent weapon for the enforcement of “public duties” where executed in action or misdeed resulted in public injury. And as a result any citizen of India or any consumer groups or social action groups can now approach the apex court of the country seeking legal remedies in all cases where the interests of general public or a section of public are at stake.

It was in the procedure determining the writ of habeas corpus that the increased scope of standing was first apparent. The first petitions that are identifiable as PILs related to conditions in detention. Indira Jaising, a leading practitioner of PIL, noted that the precise date when PIL began cannot be established, but stated that the turning point was in 1978 when the Supreme Court took cognizance of letters written from prison by Charles Sobraj and Sunil Batra. Filed as habeas corpus petitions, these cases have not been discussed in the case studies in chapters three and four, as they can be filed by an aggrieved person, and therefore do not fit within any definition of PIL.

Nonetheless, they did contribute to the increasing awareness of access to justice and social justice, as discussed in chapter one. The Supreme Court Registry described a case that was not filed or heard until 1980 as the first PIL,’ while S K Agrawala, in an exposition of the legal characteristics of PIL,’ stated that it was Justice Bhagwati who gave the concept of PIL a comprehensive exposition in 5 P Guptapopularly known as the Judges’ case.’

The first PIL that clearly fulfils the criteria later established by the Supreme Court was a habeas corpus petition filed by an advocate on the basis of news

See Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.Jaising, Indira (1986) at 4. Although procedures were relaxed in both these cases, because they were filed by the aggrieved prisoner, they cannot be described as PIL in the form supported by the Supreme Court.[1]

This view was shared by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court in 1991: The first PIL was the Judges’ case where the locus standi of a member of the bar was upheld. Justice HNl in interview. A discussion of PIL first appeared in the Annual Survey published by the Indian Law Institute in 1984, when it was observed that the first PIL was the judges case[2].

Other similar petitions were admitted, for example when a letter written by Sunil Batra, a prisoner in Tihar jail complaining on behalf of another prisoner was sent to a judge of the Supreme Court . By the early 1980’s some High Courts had also begun to admit petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, using relaxed proceedings. For the first time since the inception of the Constitution, representative proceedings, where the petitioner is not the aggrieved person or persons, were allowed by the courtPIL emerged as a category of petitions distinct from habeas corpus.[3]

Petitions were filed as representative actions by petitioners who would not specifically benefit from the litigation, and in many instances the fate of a large group of people was at stake Relaxation of standing requirements brought new issues to the courtroom, and widened the parameters of justifiability. Simultaneously.

Manubhai Shah of the Consumer Education and Research Centre supported this assertion, by referring to the petitions he had been instrumental in filing in the High Courts: Justice Bhagwati’s statements on Article 21, on the right to life with dignity, came later. I used Article 21 before Justice Bhagwati on safety.

One of the first such petitions. Municipal Council, Ratlam v Vardhichand and others AIR 1980 SC 1622, as discussed in Urban Space’ in chapter four, did not originate in the writ jurisdiction, but in a magistrates court. It has been included because of its key role in the emergence of PIL.

The rules determining the way in which petitions were to be filed were relaxed. Those without the resources to file proper petitions were allowed, even encouraged, to write letters or telegrams to the courts. Judges of the Supreme Court and various High Courts initiated petitions suo moto, newspaper clippings were accepted as evidence. There was an increase in the number of class actions and issues such as delays in the filing of petitions and res judicata were decided in relation to PIL. Efforts were made to provide adequate legal representation, to facilitate the provision of evidence, and to appoint commissions to enquire into the facts of cases. Innovative directions were issued and the courts began to monitor the implementation of their own directions. PIL was heralded as a conciliatory form of litigation, and an opportunity for the Government to examine the social and economic entitlements due to the poor.^^ New remedies were devised as the courts began to award compensation, treating PIL as a class of litigation separate from that which already existed.[4] adjudication. Before the inception of PIL, standing had reinforced the notion that the primary duty of a court was to give relief to individuals seeking remedy or redress for private wrongs. Representative standing was to gain currency with PIL, in the form of petitions for individuals and class actions, as locus standi now encompassed anyone acting in a public spirit. In 1981 the SC held that standing had to be relaxed to meet the ends of justice,and in the judges’ case, the standing of a group of advocates was upheld: Where a legal wrong or injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons … and such a person or determinate class or persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for appropriate direction.^” Within the first few years of PIL, standing was given to a vast array of petitioners including journalists, academics, lawyers, citizens, and large bodies of individuals.

The Court was careful to prescribe that only genuine public interest litigants be allowed to approach the Court, and not meddlesome interlopers or busybodies, and not those bringing issues of no public interest import to the courts.

2.2 Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh and India

The concept of public interest litigation as has emerged into the judicial administration of Bangladesh is yet to mature with the concept of justice as guaranteed by the Constitution. This is a crucial concept in a country like ours where 65% of the total populace have no or less access to judiciary although the constitution commits for equality before law, justice, right to life and equal enjoyment of fundamental rights by all citizens. With obvious socio-economic constraints and a long history of feudal past, the realization of legally recognized rights is at its nascent stage.

PIL in Bangladesh is a post-democratic (i.e. post-1991) phenomenon and its entrenchment in-Bangladeshi constitutional jurisprudence in the mid-1990s were significantly influenced by this political change. Indeed, the primary reason behind Bangladesh’s belated embrace of PIL appears to have been judicial unwillingness to break away from colonial legal thinking and abandon constitutional textualism or legal formalism. Moreover, while the emergence of PIL owes much to the judicial adoption of an autochthonous mode of Constitutional interpretation, there has hardly been any articulated urge for socially relevant jurisprudence in Bangladesh, nor is (here much realization about the in adequacy of the inherited, age-old British legal traditions. There was an early decision (1974) in Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman v Bangladesh (Berubari case) that had a strong PIL flavour, and went very close to establishing the principle of judicial review in the public interest. This decision is sometimes proudly characterized as the precursor of South Asian PIL. However, although Beruburi made the rule of standing a matter of judicial discretion, it did not authoritatively establish PIL in the sense understood today. In Beruburi, a citizen was given standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Dhaka-Delhi Treaty (involving territorial cession) because it involved an ‘outstanding’ constitutional issue ‘affecting the rights of the people of Bangladesh as a whole’.

In our Constitution the petitioner seeking enforcement of a fundamental right must be a ‘person aggrieved’. It seems that the court rejected the possibility of PIL in-Bangladesh because its Constitution, unlike India’s, required a petition by ‘a person aggrieved’ for constitutional remedies (Article 102).

This is how PIL in Bangladesh took off; probably a not-so-radical start in comparison with other successes elsewhere, but nevertheless historic. The stage for actions having been set, one could expect more PILs. The judiciary and legal circles, including the human rights groups, needed time to construct a sustainable support base for future actions, which today appears to remain under-construction. This initial phase of Bangladeshi PIL revealed a state of jurisprudential uncertainty and a general hesitation among legal activists. This is evident from the paucity of PIL actions, as well as their being framed as actionable civil rights claims filed mostly by, or conjointly with, more directly affected petitioners.39 However, there were also cases concerning civil-political rights and constitutional principles beyond the classic pattern of actions on behalf of the ‘most disadvantaged’. Along with civil-society groups and public-minded individuals/lawyers, political litigants or litigation for political interests also began to appear as an emerging, if not ultimately dangerous, feature of this period. Bangladeshi PIL entered this advanced phase of ‘the middle class usurpation’ of PIL techniques rather rapidly, and without passing through the desirable ‘pioneer stage’ of focusing on issues of serious violations of most basic fundamental rights. Nonetheless, the recent orientation of PIL towards more genuine, wider constitutional causes has largely minimized the risk of its misuse for selfish interests.

An action can be brought for public interest litigation under the following:

 Environmental degradation,

 Violation of basic human rights of the poor,

 Content or conduct of government policy,

 Compel municipal authorities to perform a public duty,

 Violation of religious rights or other basic fundamental rights.

Before entertaining a petition the Court will have to decide the extent of sufficiency of interest and the fitness of the person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction. PIL in India

In India, the liberalization of the rule of Locus Standi came out of the following considerations:

* to enable the court to reach the poor and the disadvantaged sections disadvantaged sections of society who denied their rights and entitlement,

* to enable individuals or groups of people to raise matters of common concern arising from dishonest or inefficient governance, and

* to increase public participation in the process of constitutional adjudication.

It appears that in India, the late 1970s and early 1980s was dominated by PIL on behalf of oppressed people for the enforcement of human rights within the scope of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The liberal rules of locus standi enabled the courts to reach victims of injustice. justice Bhagwati in P.U.D.v. India held:

“we wish to point out with all the emphasis at our command that public interest litigation which is a strategic arm of the legal aid movement and which is intened to bring justice within the reach of the poor masses, who constitute the low visibility area of humanity, is a totally different kind of litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation which is essentially of an adversary character where there is a dispute between two litigating parties, one making claim or seeking relief against the other and that other opposing such clam or resisting such relief, Public interest litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one individual against another as happens in the case of ordinary, but it is intended to promote vindicate public interest which demands that violations of constitutional or legal rights number of people who are poor, ignorant or in socially or economically disadvantaged position should not go unnoticed and unrepressed”.

In India, the horizon of public interest litigation was widened later on and included the claims against violations of human right on behalf of the victims of political oppression, social tyranny and economic exploitation of human made by public- spirited persons or organizations- for instances- against allegations of the killing of innocent people or suspected accused though false encounters , the death of persons in police custody because of torture , inhuman working conditions in stone quarries, for controlling occupational health hazards , to get the CBI to enquire into the Gajraula nuns rape case and against allegation of police atrocities and so on.

PIL was extended for the group rights. The Supreme Court of India also entertained a PIL petition by the workers of a public sector company challenging the sale of a plant by its management causing colossal loss to the public treasury relaxing the traditional view of locus standi.

In S.P Gupta v president of India and Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v India the Supreme Court of India entertained PIL petition from lawyers for securing the independence of the judiciary as a basic feature of the constitution. However, Justice Bhagwati in S.P Gupta v President of India extended the locus standi to any member of the public having sufficient interest and held:

“We would, therefore, hold that any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from the breach of public duty of from violation of some provision of the constitution or the law and seek enforcement of since the late 1980s, the main focus of public interest litigation seems to have shifted towards protection of the environment lawlessness, nourishment of the doctrine of rule of law and protection of the environment. Reference may be given to M.C. Mehta v India against pollution of the river Ganges by Calcutta tanneries, etc.

Since the late 1980s, the main focus of public interest litigation seems to have shifted towards prevention of government lawlessness, nourishment of the doctrine of rule of law and protection of the environment. References may be given to M.C. Mehta v India for protection and conservation of wild life, M.C. Mehta V India against degradation of the Taj Mahal, M.C. Mehta V India against pollution of the river Ganges by Calcutta tanneries, etc.

The traditional concept of mandamus has been changed and its scope has increased under PIL. mandamus, under the traditional sense, is issued to compel the government or public authority to do what it is legally obliged to do. However, the mandamus under PIL, is issued to mandate the government or the public authority to do what is the entirely within its discretion to do or not do. Indian Courts has applied it in many cases. In Parmajitkaur v Punjab mandamus was issued against the allegation of violation of human rights and the CBI was asked to investigate it, mandamus was issued on a petition against non-functioning of medical equipment in government hospitals, petition for improving the conditions of service of the members of subordinate judicial service and so on.

The Supreme Court of Bangladesh fully embraced the concept of PIL by widening both the rules of locus standi and justifiability in the case of Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh. The Appellate Division held:

“…when a public injury or a public wrong or infraction of a fundamental right affecting an indeterminate number of people is involved it is not necessary in the scheme of our constitution, that the multitude of individuals who has been collectively wronged or injured or whose collective rights have been invaded are to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 102 in a multitude of individual writ petitions, each requesting his own portion of concern. In so far as it concerns public wrong or public injury or invasion of fundamental rights of an indeterminate number of people, any member of the public, being a citizen, suffering the common injury or common invasion in common with others or any citizen or an indigenous association, as distinguished from a local component of a foreign organization, espousing that particular cause is a person aggrieved and has the right to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 102”. [5]

The interpretation of “person aggrieved” is given as that the person not being personally affected may have sufficient interest in the subject matter of dispute. A public functionary woing a public duty to the public in general, every citizen has sufficient interest in the performance of that public duty. It appears that in the case of Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh above the Appellate Division expanded the locus standi in PIL cases holding that if it concerns public wrong or public injury or invasion of the fundamental rights of an indeterminate number of people, any member of the public being a ctizen suffering the common injury or common invasion in common with others can invoke Article 102 of the Constitution.

In our jurisdiction PIL cases were successfully allowed by the Apex Court in various circumstances for protection of fundamental human rights and rule of law, securing basic structure of the Constitution and constitutional provisions, protection of environment, challenging lawlessness of the government and public authority, protection of the Court from scandalizing, etc. The Supreme court thus liberalized the rule of locus standi for addressing the public wrong and public injury. In Ekushey Television Ltd. v. Chowdhury Mahmood Hasan Appellate Division entertained a PIL petition for securing transparency and accountability as rule of law in the government action, though the injury caused by the breach of duty of the public authority was not to any specific or determinate class of group of people or to a particular individual but to the public in general.

PIL was successfully allowed for protecting the environment, challenging the appointment of Secretary for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, the constitutionality of Emergency Powers Ordinance and Rules of 2007, determination of the warrant of precedence, direction to the Election Commission to seek material information about election candidates through sworn affidavits, among others. Development of Public Interest Litigation has been gradual. Before its introduction in Bangladesh, it successfully developed in several other jurisdictions. The term ‘public interest litigation’ was first used in the USA in the late 1960s and early 1970s when a special type of cases sought to represent the underrepresented interests of the society in law courts. It came as a part of the greater movement of ‘public interest law’ that included legal aid, alternative dispute resolutions, lobbying and so on. Funded by voluntary sector organizations, lawyers organized themselves into public interest law firms. Success of PIL in the USA influenced other jurisdictions including Canada, Australia and England. The English judges, and subsequently the lawmakers, gradually liberalized the principles of locus standi enabling concerned citizens to approach the court for public interest. However, the most remarkable development of PIL took place in India in the early 1980s.ln the aftermath of the emergency period, there was a rapid expansion of free press and activities of voluntary sector human rights groups. A number of judges proceeded as social activists and induced and led a major change of the traditional law by introducing Pit. Accordingly, any person can activate the court to safeguard the interest of the public, especially those of the poor and vulnerable section of the community. This new development was seen as a constitutional imperative to attain social justice. Pakistan joined the club in the late 1980s after the restoration of democracy. The judges introduced Pit on the ground that the Islamic social justice precepts of the Constitution validate a Pit approach”.

Advancement of PIL in Bangladesh coincided with the restoration of democracy. Some attempts to introduce PIL in Bangladesh started since 1992. Initially, it was difficult to overcome the threshold problem. However, relentless efforts of the social activists enabled the progressive minded judges to interpret the Constitution liberally through a series of cases. When success finally came in 1996, the Supreme Court not only found that Public Interest Litigation is valid under the constitutional scheme, but that the Constitution mandates a Public Interest Litigation approach

In recent times the civil society movement for enjoyment of rights took a new dimension with the judiciary being increasingly occupied with public interest cases seeking relief against administrative anarchy and ignorance. It is interesting to note that the concept of PIL is developing in Bangladesh as a performance of public duty by civil society groups advocating in support of progressive ideologies. In 1994 a petition was first taken before the High Court by BELA on behalf of the people of a given locality where a disputed development action was being implemented. The petition was at first rejected by the court on the ground of standing of the organization. An appeal was preferred from that rejection where the core question was whether groups like BELA with dedicated and sincere record of activism can claim to have acquired sufficient interest to seek judicial redress against anarchy in its own field of action. The question was vital as it was a constitutional requirement under Article 102 that it is only “a person aggrieved” who can file petitions for enforcement of fundamental rights. In other words, only the affected parties had the locus PIL definition: Litigation popularly known as PIL can be broadly defined as litigation in the interest of that Public Interest Litigation ( PIL ) Public Interest nebulous entity: the locus standi (standing required in law) to file a case and continue the litigation and the non-affected persons had no locus standi to do so. According to Black’s Law Dictionary- “Public Interest Litigation means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.” Public Interest Litigation is meant for enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights of the people who are poor, weak, ignorant of legal redresser system or otherwise in a disadvantageous position, due to their social or economic background. Such litigation can be initiated only for redresser of a public injury, enforcement of a public duty or vindicating interest of public nature. It is necessary that the petition is not filed for personal gain or private motive or for other extraneous consideration and is filed bona fide in public interest. Public Interest Litigation (PIL)in Bangladesh: Public Interest Litigation (PIL)’s entrenchment in-Bangladeshi constitutional jurisprudence in the mid-1990s . Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is one of the judicial way through which administrative accountability can be ensured in Bangladesh. A PIL, a petition brought before the High Court Division of the supreme court of Bangladesh in the nature of write under Article 102 of the constitution, is an effective tool for the enforcement of the constitutional and legal rights of the poor and excluded groups as well as ensuring accountability of concerned govt. and public authorities towards the issues of public importance. PIL is same as judicial Review in the public interest. The distinction between judicial review and PIL is that in writ petition is linked with private interest and PIL only deals with public interest. It aims to enhance social and collective justice and there must be a public cause involved as opposed to a private cause. In short, PIL may be described as a type of litigation where the interest of the public is given priority over all other interests with an aim to ensure social and collective justice, the court being ready to disregard the constraints of the adversary model of litigation. PIL is a kind of judicial procedure in the form of legal activism on the part of court. It’s a strategic arm of the legal aid movement. PIL is central to the principles of social justice, i.e. justice for the weak. PIL has enlarged the door of the administrative accountability through judiciary. Through PIL accountability is ensured by the courts for injustice committed by the agencies of the government or persons in contraventions to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution, rights emanating from other laws of the country and the principle of natural justice. It’s a medium for social and economic charge in the country by removing the unfairness and injustices in society. It supports and aims for public accountability of the govt. Issues in PIL : Unlike mainstream law, PIL is not oriented, to the individual nor does it deal with a range of ‘single’ disputes. PIL is invariably group-oriented. It deals with the assertion of group or collective rights, involves questions of injustice pertaining to a group or collectivity, or may involve a legal action where an individual is representative of a group. PIL sees in this group dimension to its work the opportunity to make more profound structural changes in society and initiate larger ripples of change.

PIL has also flourished in countries of the world, because it provides a way for civil society to become actively involved in questioning public decision-making, including decisions on political structure and democratic space. It provides a way to challenge and change major public policy decisions and campaign for social, economic and political reform. This age-old principle of locus standi caused Bangladesh not to have any successful PIL. For example, in [KaziMukhlasur Rahman vs Bangladesh] (1974), also known as “Berubary case”, had a strong PIL backing and was very close to establishing the principle of judicial review in the public interest. Here the Appellant’s locus standi was questioned since he was not a resident of the territory. Although the Appellate Division (AD) had granted the locus standi as it constituted an impeding threat to his fundamental right to move freely throughout the country and settle anywhere but it did not authoritatively establish PIL in the sense understood today. A PIL can be filed only in a case where “Public interest” at large is affected. Some of the possible areas where a PIL can be field are- a) Where a factory or industrial unit is causing air pollution and people nearby are getting affected. b) Where some construction company is cutting down trees, causing environmental pollution.

Where, in an area there are no street lights, causing inconvenience to commuters. d) Where there is regular loud “miking” in a residential area causing noise pollution. e) Where poor people are affected because of govt’s arbitrary decision to impose “tax” heavily. f) For maintaining roads, sewer etc. in good condition. g) For removal of big hoarding and signboard from the busy road to avoid traffic problem.

Any public-spirited person can file a PIL on behalf of a group of persons whose rights are affected. For example, a lawyer may file a PIL for release of some peoples under trial in jail, who have spent more number of years in jail than the period proscribed as punishment for persons the offence they are being tried for. According to Article 102 of Bangladesh Constitution Writ can be applied to all government authorities. The Writ petition should involve a question, which affects public at large or group of people and not a single petition, depending upon the nature of case.

A PIL can be filed only against state/central government, municipal authorities but not my private party. ii. However “Private Party” can be included in PIL as “Respondent”, after making concerned state authority party. Procedure to file PIL: PIL is filed in the same manner as a writ petition is filed. In High Court: If a PIL is filed in a High Court, then two (2) copies of the petition have to be filed. Also, an advance copy of the petition has to be served on each respondent, i.e. opposite party. In Supreme Court: If a PIL is filed in the Supreme Court then 5 sets of petition have to be filed apposite party is served, the copy only when notice is issued. Procedure: i. Proceeding, in PIL start and carry on in the same manner, as other cases. ii. However in between the proceedings if the judge feels he/she may appoint a commissioner, to inspect allegations like pollution being caused, trees being cut, sewer problems etc. iii. After filing of replies, by opposite party, and rejoinder by the petitioner, final hearing takes place, and the judge gives his final decision.

Mukhlesur RehmanKaziv. Bangladesh, popularly known as the Berubari case, is generally regarded as the starting point of PIL in Bangladesh. The petitioner Kazi Mukhlesur Rehman, an advocate by profession, came to the court challenging an international treaty signed by the Prime Ministers of Bangladesh and India in May 1974, allowing India to retrain the Southern half of South Berubari Union No. 12 on the ground that the agreement involved cession of territory and was entered into without lawful authority by the executive head of government. Since the petitioner had come to the court as a citizen his standing was disputed. But Chief Justice Sayeem granted him ‘locus standi’ on the ground that the petitioner agitated a question involving a constitutional question of grave importance which threatened his right as a citizen to move freely throughout the territory of Bangladesh and to reside and settle in any part therein. The court held that the question is not whether the court has jurisdiction but whether the petitioner is competent to claim a hearing.[6] Reinterpreting a citizen’s right vis-à-vis the power of the state, CJ Sayeem observed: “it appears to us that the question of locus standi does not involve the court’s jurisdiction to hear a person but the competency of the person to claim a hearing so that the question is one of discretion which the court exercises upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case.”33 The Berubari case cast enormous influence on the development of PIL in Bangladesh. It has been time and again resorted to and relied upon by the PIL petitioners in subsequent PIL cases attempting to acquire standing. However, the period of 1975-1986 following the Berubari case (1974) remained almost barren from the PIL viewpoint. This was so because of the imposition of martial law and suspension of the Bangladesh constitution. However, after its establishment in 1978 the Madaripur Legal Aid Movement, the first village based and grass-root legal aid organization, was engaged in spreading the idea of legal rights of the poor and started assisting public interest activities.

PIL can flourish only in an environment conducive to proper functioning of constitution and the rule of law. Even after the withdrawal of martial law on Nov. 11, 1986, the democracy introduced by military ruler General Ershad was controlled and guided. Nevertheless, concerned citizens defying Gen. Ershad’s autocratic rule, started coming to the court agitating public interest issues. This period also saw a number of lawyers starting to form themselves into groups to fight pro-bono publico cases. The year 1987 is regarded as a year marking the beginning of PIL cases in Bangladesh. In Anwar Hossain Chaudhary v. Bangladesh34, also known as the 8th Amendment case, the majority judgment of the court, confirming its power of judicial review, held that the basic structure of the constitution cannot be altered, and thus voided the Eighth Amendment which had decentralized the higher judiciary. This 8th Amendment case is sometimes also described as a forerunner of PIL cases in Bangladesh. However, in Bangladesh Sangbadpatra Parishad v. the Government of Bangladesh in which the constitutional authority of a wage Board for fixing the wages of newspaper employees was challenged by an association of newspaper owners, the Appellate Division refused standing to the petitioner on the ground that it was not a person aggrieved: “The petitioner is not espousing the cause of a downtrodden and deprived section of the community unable to spend money to establish its fundamental rights and enforce its constitutional remedies. It is not acting pro-bono publico but in the interest of its members.”35 Only after democracy started functioning in Bangladesh, some significant PIL cases relating to personal liberty were agitated before the court in 1992 and immediately thereafter. In Ayesha Khanam& Others v. Major Sabir Ahmed & Others36 the court expanded the orbit of habeas corpus by giving standing in a case of private detention involving the issue of a mother seeking the custody of her child. Similarly, investigative journalism gave birth to a leading case, State v. Falu Mia,37 which resulted in the release of Falu Miya after 21 years in jail who had overstayed in prison due to administrative callousness. State v. Deputy Commissioner, Satkhira& Others,38 also known as Nazrul Islam’s case, was initiated ‘so moto’ by Justice MM Hoque who came across a newspaper reporting about the plight of one NazrulIalam who had been detained in the prison for 12 years without any trial. This case resulted in subsequent release of Nazrul Islam from illegal detention. The year 1994 witnessed the filing of a considerable number of PIL cases in Bangladesh which fell into two broad categories: one involving political issues and another dealing with environmental and consumer concerns. In Anwar Hossain Khan v. Speaker of Bangladesh SangsadBhaban& Others, also known as the Parliament Boycott case, the ‘locus standi’ of a political activist was upheld by the court who had sought the enforcement of his fundamental right of being represented in Parliament[7].

2.3 : Objectives and subject matter of public interest litigation:

Public Interest Litigation has various objects. It is filed in a court-

 To ensure the constitutional and legal rights of the poor and excluded groups.

 To enhance social and collective justice.

 To ensure the accountability of concerned govt. And public authorities towards the issues of public importance.

Public interest litigation is important because of several factors. Important among these are as below-

 In most developing countries, the legal regime of environmental laws is weak and the laws are difficult to enforce and sometimes ambiguous. Public interest litigation has helped bridge this gap.

 PIL is important where the government is not willing to protect the environment. The government may not be willing to prosecute those who violate environmental laws and at times the government is a violator of environmental laws.

 In most developing countries governments lack resources to prosecute and investigate the entire criminal cases that take place within its jurisdiction. Public interest litigation enables individuals to bring action on behalf of the community, a role the government may not play.

 Where criminal remedies are not enough, for example a fine may be too small compared to the amount of environmental degradation.

 Where criminal remedies are not enforceable, e.g. where a crime is committed by a company and yet the punishment for the crime is imprisonment, it becomes hard to punish the company.

Public interest litigation can be filed only in that case where any “public interest” is affecting at large. If only one person is affecting, then it is not a ground for filing PIL. There are some of the possible areas where a Public Interest Litigation can be filed-

 Where a factory or industrial unit is causing air pollution, and people nearly are getting affected.

 Where, in an area or street there are no street lights, causing inconvenience to commuters.

 Where some ‘Banquet Hall’ plays a loud music in night in a residential area causing noise pollution.

 Where some construction company is cutting down trees, causing environmental pollution.

 Where poor people are affected because of government’s arbitrary decision to impose heavy ‘tax’.

 For directing the police or Jail authorities to take appropriate decisions in regards to jail reforms, such as segregation of convicts, delay in trial, production of under trial before the court on remand dates.

 For abolishing child labour, and bonded labour.

 Where rights of working women are affected by sexual harassment.

 For keeping a check on corruption and crime involving holders of high political officer.

 For maintaining Roads, drains, Sewer etc in good conditions.

 For removal of Big Hoarding and signboard from the busy road to avoid traffic problem.

So these are the various area in which any public spirited person can file any PIL for the interest of public.

Public Interest Litigation is meant for enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights of the people who are poor, weak, ignorant of legal redressed system or otherwise in a disadvantageous position, due to their social or economic

background. Such litigation can be initiated only for redressal of a public injury, enforcement of a public duty or vindicating interest of public nature. It is necessary that the petition is not filed for personal gain or private motive or for other extraneous consideration and is filed bona fide in public interest. There are three basic requirements to file the public interest litigation.

They are:-

Personal Injury
Causation
Redress ability
Injury: – The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury- an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.

Causation: – There must be a casual connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.

Redressability: – It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury. Prudential Limitations of Locus Standi: – Additionally there are three major prudential limitations or judicially

created standing principles. Those principles were widened depending on the

circumstances: Public Interest Litigation is meant for enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights of the people who are poor, weak, ignorant of legal redressal system or otherwise in a disadvantageous position, due to their social or economic background. Such litigation can be initiated only for redressal of a public injury, enforcement of a public duty or vindicating interest of public nature. It is necessary that the petition is not filed for personal gain or private motive or for other extraneous consideration and is filed bona fide in public interest. The following are the subjects which may be litigated under the head of Public Interest Litigation:

(I) The matters of public interest: Generally they include

bonded labour matters
matters of neglected children
Exploitation of casual labourers and non-payment of wages to them (except in individual cases)
matters of harassment or torture of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Economically Backward Classes, either by co-villagers or by police
matters relating to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance, drugs, food adulteration, maintenance of heritage and culture, antiques, forests and wild life,
petitions from riot victims and
other matters of public importance.

(II) The matters of private nature: They include:

threat to or harassment of the petitioner by private persons,
seeking enquiry by an agency other than local police,
seeking police protection,
admission to medic

al or engineering colleges,

early hearing of matters pending in High Court and subordinate courts and are not considered matters of public interest.

(III) Letter Petitions: Petitions received by post even though not in public interest can be treated as writ petitions if so directed by the Hon’ble Judge nominated for this purpose. Individual petitions complaining harassment or torture or death in jail or by

police, complaints of atrocities on women such as harassment for dowry, bride burning, rape, murder and kidnapping, complaints relating to family pensions and complaints of refusal by police to register the case can be registered as writ petitions, if so approved by the concerned Hon’ble Judge. If deemed expedient, a report from the concerned authority is called before placing the matter before the Hon’ble Judge for directions. If so directed by the Hon’ble Judge, the letter is registered as a writ petition and is thereafter listed before the Court for hearing.

2.4: Challenges to enforce right to life through Public Interest Litigation:

So far as we know that to win over a good work requires countering enormous challenges of which life threatening is the master one. From the experience of practice in the legal arena, it is very often found that those who dream and work to enforce the rights of public including right to life through PIL have to count and face limitless challenges, sufferings and threats in Bangladesh. Even threats of killing, abduction, physical assault, political harassment etc. have become part and parcel of life when dealing with PIL.

More regretfully, it can be brought forward that funding problems, security issues, delayed communication of orders implementation of judgments, negligence and audacity showing tendency by the executives to execute order and judgment many more limitations and challenges try to grip on the legs of persons and /or organizations working dedicatedly to ensure and enforce the right to life for citizens through PIL in Bangladesh.

Apart from this, many untold pains and challenges have to overcome by the learned advocates who conducts the PIL, though learned advocates are intrepid and determined enough to do their professional responsibility.

In a sentence, I feel like to express my view that to win over the journey of PIL is nothing but a fight with no arms and ammunitions.

2.5: Organizations and persons working for protection of right to life in Bangladesh:

It is undoubtedly the good sign that a good number of learned advocates, organizations and human rights activists have actively been working in Bangladesh for protection of right to life through public interest litigation. If some one thinks a person to name who has been contributing a lot and already been a pioneer in PIL in Bangladesh is nobody else but advocate Manzil Morshed. Apart from this, Barrister Sara Hossain of BLAST, Advocate Sultana Kamal of AIN-O SALISH KENDRA, Barrister Abdul Halim of Children Charity Foundation (CCBF),Advocate Adilur Rahman of ODHIKAR, Advocate Farhad Uddin Ahmed Bhuiyan of MANUSHER JONNO TRUST , Advocate Syeda Rejwana Chowdhury of BELA and Bangladesh National Women Lawyers’ Association(BNWLA) etc. Besides, many learned friends of Bangladesh Supreme Court ,more particularly, Barrister Anik R Haque, Barrister Ruhul Quddus Kazal , Advocate Amit Das Gupta Barrister Humayun Kabir Pallab have been keeping rated and utmost contribution in enforcing right to life and other constitutional rights in Bangladesh through Public Interest Litigation.

No telling to say that in recent days the trend of filing PIL in Bangladesh has been skyrocketing having significant remedies from the Courts.

Interestingly, to enforce the right to life , now a days ,tortuous reliefs are being entertained by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. A famous PIL of these days in Bangladesh filed by our learned friend Barrister Shihab Uddin to remove and withdraw the adulterated , quality less, contaminated 52 food items of Bangladesh from market with the plea that these foods can take the lives of the countrymen like as slow poison which is contradictory with the spirit of right to life as guaranteed under article 32 of the Constitution of Bangladesh.

Chapter : 3

3.1 Expanding the meaning of concepts of different relevant terms:

It can safely be deduced from the criteria mentioned in this judgmental that PIL can mainly be entertained in the case of serious violation of fundamental right to life and liberty, for group rights of least advantaged and for protection of environment. Clauses 7 and 9 of paragraph no. 38 of the judgment seem to have Deviated from the earlier jurisprudence of locus standi developed by the Appellate Division in Dr. Mohiudin Farooque v. Bangladesh and ekushey Television Ltd v. Chowdhury Mahamood Hasan. Subsequent decision of the Appellate Division dated 03.07.2017 in 16th Amendment case followed the principles of Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque’scse since the since the case was concerned with the protection of independence Clause 11 of paragraph no. 38 also seems not to be in the line of judicial principles as regards the scope of PIL enunciated in the Dr. MohiuddinFarooque case. By the instant criteria, the redress against public wrong for the enforcement of the rule of law and petitions for protection of basic structure of the Constitution, against violation of the provisions of the Constitution, ensuring the independence of the judiciary, contempt of court for scandalizing the court are left out.

In other words, many successful PIL cases filed by HRPB and other public spirited people and organization can hardly be entertained if the above criteria are followed strictly. However, the Appellate Division in the case of National board of Revenue vs. Abu Saeed Khan and others did not overrule the earlier decisions of the Appellate Division and therefore the principles expounded by the Appellate Division in the Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque case and other cases, pinnacle in their own regard, are still the governing and applicable principles in relation to locus standi and justifiability as the those principles were followed in the latest case of the 16th Amendment of the Constitution. Further during the hearing of 16th Amendment case in both the Divisions, the case of National Board of Revenue vs. Abu Saeed Khan and others was referred and both the Divisions were not inclined to accept the criteria specified therein. It is submitted that in the case of National Board of Revenue vs. Abu Saeed Khan and others, the PIL petition failed not on the ground of locus standi but for lack of justiciability. However, to determine the locus standi and justiciability. In PIL cases, the court has to put its endeavor to find out as to whether the principles already accepted in our jurisdiction in the earlier cases are applicable in the given facts and

The first part of Article 102(1), relates to fundamental rights. The power of the court is not discretion since Article 44(1) declares that the right to move the Court to enforce fundamental right is itself a fundamental right. So the situation is situation is similar to Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The second part of Article 102(2), relates to cases involving non-fundamental rights. It uses the same language and defines the same five types of ‘writs’ as Article 98 of the Pakistan Constitution of 1962. Clause 2(a) (i) provides for remedies in the nature of prohibition and mandamus; clause 2(a) (ii) grants remedies in the nature of certiorari; clause 2(b) (ii) deals with remedies in the nature of quo warrantu .

For the purpose of our discussion on standing, however, we have two broad types. In the first category are cases under clause 1 and clause 2(a) where the applicant must be a ‘person aggrieved’. In the second category are cases under clause 2(b) where any person can apply, whether or not aggrieved. Interestingly, in cases of habeas corpus and que warranto, the applicant is required to show grievance in cases of fundamental rights but not in cases of non-fundamental rights. This apparent anomaly, however, does not give other types of rights more importance than fundamental rights. The Court has taken the prudent view of harmonious interpretation and as such no one is denied relief on this issue.

Mahmudul Islam says:

It is very difficult to accept a contention that the condition for enforcement of the fundamental right relating to personal liberty is more onerous than the condition for issuance of an ordinary writ of habeas corpus. A reasonable and harmonious interpretation should be given and it should be taken that the requirement of ‘aggrieved person’ to apply for enforcement of fundamental rights is not applicable in respect of a petition involving detention by an aggrieved person even though the petition for habeas corpus alleged violation of fundamental rights.

In spite of the close resemblance with the Indian and Pakistani constitutional provisions, the standing rules in Bangladesh have developed through a somewhat different route. The following discussion will examine how the Bangladesh Supreme Court, following the English, Indian and Pakistani Courts, gradually came out of the restrictive locus standi rules where public interest is revolved.

Powers of High Court Division to issue certain orders and directions:

According to Article l02 (l) of the constitution of Bangladesh provides that the High Court Division on the application of any person aggrieved, may give such directions or orders to any person or authority, including any person performing any function in connection with the affairs of the Republic, as may be appropriate for the enforcement of any the fundamental rights conferred by Part if of this Constitution.

According to Article 102(2) of the constitution of Bangladesh provides that the High Court Division may, if satisfied that no other equally efficacious remedy is provided by law.

On the application of any person aggrieved, make an order¬

directing a person performing any functions in connection with the affairs of the Republic or of a local authority to refrain from doing that which he is not permitted by law to do or to do that which he is required by law to do;
declaring that any act done or proceeding taken by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Republic or of a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect; or

According to Article l02 (3) of the constitution of Bangladesh provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing clauses, the High Court Division shall have no power under this article to pass any interim or other order in relation to any law to which article 47 applies.

According to Article lO2(4) of the constitution of Bangladesh provides that Whereon an application made under clause (1) or sub-clause (a) of clause (2), an interim order is prayed for and such interim order is likely to have the effect of-

prejudicing or interfering with any measure designed to implement any development programmed, or any development work; or
being otherwise harmful to the public interest, the High Court Division shall not make an interim order unless the Attorney-General has been given reasonable notice of the application and he (or an advocate authorized by him in that behalf) has been given an opportunity or being heard, and the High Court Division is satisfied hat the interim order would not have the effect referred to in sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) According to Article 02(5) of the constitution of Bangladesh provides that In this article, unless the context otherwise requires, “person” includes a statutory public authority and any court or tribunal, other than a court or tribunal established under a law relating to the defense services of Bangladesh or any disciplined force or a tribunal to which article 117 applies.

The exemption in sub-section 3 – referring back to article 47 of the constitution -has little impact on health and safety issues.

3.2 Interpreting aggrieved person(s) in the broad sense:

The Appellate Division from (judgment delivered by S.K, Sinha CJ) in the above case, prescribed some criteria for the High Court Division to follow in entertaining petitions in public interest litigation.

“38—We reemphasize the parameters within which the High Court Division should extend its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a PIL.

The Court which is considering the question of bonafide in a particular case will have to decide as to why the affected party has not come before it and if it finds no satisfactory reason for non-appearance of such affected party, it may refuse to entertain the petition.
If a petition is filed to represent opulent members who were directly affected by the decision of the Government or Public Authority, such petition would not be entertained.
The expression “person aggrieved” used in Article 102(1) means no any person who is personally aggrieved but one, whose heart bleeds for the less fortunate fellow being for wrong done by any person or authority in connection with the affairs of the Republic or a Statutory Public Authority.
If a person making the application on enquiry is found to be an interloper who interferes with the action of any person or authority as above which does not concern him is not entitled to such petition.
The Court is under an obligation or origination to guard that the filing of a PIL does not convert it into a publicity interest litigation or private interest litigation.
Only a public spirited person or organization can invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court on behalf of such disadvantaged and, helpless persons.
The Court should also guard that its processes are not abused by any person.
The Court should also guard that the petition is initiated for the benefit of the poor or for any or for any number of people who have been suffering from common injury but their grievances cannot be redressed as they are not and able to reach the Court.
It must also be guarded that every wrong or curiosity is not and cannot be the subject matter of PIL.
No petitions will be entertained challenging the policy matters of the Government, development workers being implemented by the Government, Orders of promotion or transfer of public servants, impanation of taxes by the competent authority
The Court has no power to entertain a petition which trespasses into the areas which are reserved to the executive and legislative by the Constitution.
A petition will be entertained if it is moved to protect basic human rights of the disadvantaged citizens who are unable to reach the Court due to illiteracy or monetary haplessness.
Apart from the above, the following are some of the categories of cases which will be entertained:
a) For the protection of neglected children
b) Non- payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers and components of violation of laborlaws(except in individual cases)
c) Petitions complaining death in jail or police custody, or caused by law; enforcing agencies.
d) Petitions against law enforcing agencies for refusing to register a case despite there are exiting allegations of commission of cognizable offences.
e) Petitions against atrocities on women such as, bride burning rape, murder for dowry, kidnapping.
f) Petitions complaining harassment of torture of citizens by police or other law enforcing agencies.
g) Petitions pertaining to environmental pollution, disturbance of ecological balance, drugs, food adulteration maintenance of heritage and culture,
h) Petitions from riot victims.

The Supreme Court (SC), through its successive judgments, has relaxed the strict rule of ‘locus-standi’ applicable to private litigation. Any public-spirited person can file a Public Interest Litigation case (PIL) on behalf of a group of persons, whose rights are affected. It is not necessary that, the person filing a case should have a direct interest in this Public Interest Litigation. It is provided that-

 He is a member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in instituting an action for redressal of public wrong or public injury.

 He is not a mere busy body or a meddlesome interloper.

 His action is not motivated by personal gain or any other oblique consideration.

For example, a person living in Chittagong can file a PIL against garments or Cracker factory in Gazipur industrial area or anywhere of the country is running on child labour. A citizen can also file a PIL challenging governments’ arbitrary decision to impose heavy tax that is affecting the poor people. It is not necessary that, the citizen filing the PIL is not personally so much affected by that activity or decision.[8]

At present, the court can treat a letter as a writ petition and take action upon it. But, it is not every letter which may be treated as a writ petition by the court. The court would be justified in treating the letter as a writ petition only in the following cases-

It is only where the letter is addressed by an aggrieved person; or
a public spirited individual; or
a social action group for enforcement of the constitutional or the legal rights of a person in custody or of a class or group of persons who by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position find it difficult to approach the court for redress.

According to the guidelines of the Supreme Court any member of public having sufficient interest may maintain an action or petition by way of PIL provided: –

» There is a personal injury or injury to a disadvantaged section of the population for whom access to legal justice system is difficult,

» The person bringing the action has sufficient interest to maintain an action of public injury,

» The injury must have arisen because of breach of public duty or violation of the Constitution or of the law,

» It must seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of the constitutional law or legal provision.

3.3 Concept of Public Interest Litigation

The term Public Interest Litigation (PIL), a new phenomenon in our legal system, is used to describe cases where conscious citizens or organizations’ approach the court bona-fide in public interest. In Bangladesh, concerned citizens and organizations have challenged illegal detention. Within its scope, which is continuously expanding, PIL includes cases involving poverty related problems, police atrocities, illegal detention, environmental and consumer matters, health related problems, rights of children and women, minority affairs and other human rights issues. The basis of legitimacy of the law courts is impartiality. In the Common law based legal systems, including that of Bangladesh, this impartiality is safeguarded through an adversarial model of litigation. Thus the judge is a neutral umpire and is not supposed to intervene while the parties debate their case in front of him. This system works well in most of the cases as long as they involve private disputes where the strengths of the parties are more or less evenly balanced. But when one of the parties is disproportionately poor and powerless, it becomes very difficult to litigate on equal terms. The disadvantaged party can afford neither the best lawyers nor the other resources available to his adversary. The concept and practice of PIL is thus an exception to the general rules of our Common law based legal system. It is not a revolution in the sense that it does not attempt to overthrow the entire existing system. But it is not a mere tinkering with the system either. It brings along with it a new set of principles and procedures that negate the traditional approach when public interest is concerned. PIL, thus, is a major reformation at both conceptual and practical levels. Advancement of PIL in Bangladesh coincided with the restoration of democracy. Some attempts to introduce PIL in Bangladesh started since 1992. Initially, it was difficult to overcome the threshold problem. However, relentless efforts of the social activists enabled the progressive minded judges interpret the Constitution liberally through a series of cases. When success rally came in 1996, the Supreme Court not only found that PIL is valid under is constitutional scheme, but that the Constitution mandates a PIL approach. In a number of cases, the Supreme Court as well as many High Courts has entertained petitions and letters not only by the person or persons who can be said to be aggrieved or adversely affected in strict sense of term by any action or omission by the respondents.

The term ‘Public Interest Litigation’ ordinarily means a legal action which is initiated before a court of law for the purpose of enforcement of general interest of the public. PIL is a creative judicial weapon innovated by the apex judiciary through the means of judicial activism. It aims at protecting and vindicating the rights and interests of the marginalized sections of the society who are socially backward, politically unconscious and economically oppressed and exploited and, for this reason, who cannot approach the court to seek remedial relief. PIL also contemplates legal proceedings for vindication or enforcement of the fundamental or legal rights of a group of people or community who are incapable of enforcing them for various reasons like indigence, incapacity, illiteracy, unawareness or ignorance of law.[9]

It is in this context that Justice PN Bhagwati described PIL as “the strategic arm of the legal aid movement”…”which is intended to bring justice within the reach of the poor masses, who constitute the low visibility area of humanity”.3 Thus the court has developed a new paradigm of judicial process which envisages an affirmative proactive role of the judiciary for ensuring access to justice for those who cannot invoke the judicial process for a variety of reasons. This could be made possible chiefly by relaxing the rule of ‘locus standi’ and allowing public spirited persons or organizations to enter the court on their behalf for the sake of seeking judicial relief for their maladies. This liberalization of the rule of ‘locus standi’ is motivated chiefly by the following four considerations: • to enable the court to reach the disadvantaged people who have been denied their rights, • to enable individuals or groups of people to raise matters of common concern arising out of dishonest or inefficient governance, • to compel and caution the executive which appears to have failed in discharging its constitutional or statutory duties or obligations, and • to increase public participation in the process of constitutional adjudication.

3.4 Meaning and Concept of ‘Right To Life:

“Each person of life, liberty and security of person is.” Undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights is the right to life. In its original meaning of Article 21 was

interpreted as a fundamental right is not worth a mention. As interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court of India in this chapter will examine the right to life.

India, 1950, Article 21 provides that, “No person except according to procedure

established by law shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty.” Article 21 of the

Constitution, “life” is not only the physical act of breathing. The mere animal existence or life is communicated through continuous hard work. The right to health, right livelihood, right to live with human dignity, which includes a very broad sense, free air, and the right to pollute. It has received broad interpretation of the Constitution is the only article. Article 21 of the shelter under the canopy so many rights, development and nutrition is found.

Maneka lost court cases ‘individual freedom’ means to expand the help of the right

to life. Francis Coralie1 in Bhagwati. J Cram Kapra and house party slogan [food,

clothing and shelter] increase in the dimensions of your Maneka. Thinking and feeling

full learned judge “to include faculties for life ‘concept of the right to elaborate., He

added:

Judge Learned “human dignity, basic needs” include family and friends to socialize with members of the “right to live” interpretation. In the above case Bhagwati.J., ‘Right to life’ through ‘individual freedom’ to bring in concepts related to. This personal freedom is not free from criticism that this interpretation is presented. The word ‘life’ separate ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is involved with.

Makes such a huge sense of personal freedom, the word “life” would be redundant. The Supreme Court jurisprudence Indian independence brought the level of international standard.

Francis ratio in the Asiad workers’ basic human dignity “was implemented to develop. Then mix the new socio-economic order thus produced was dissolved in constitutional goal. Court contract workers [Reg require compliance with the provisions of ‘individual freedom’ in the interpretation of basic human dignity. And abolition] Act, 1970, and interstate migrant Workemn [Reg. Employment and Conditions of Service] Act, 1979.

The meaning of individual freedom and social welfare benefits provided under the laws and protection provided to workers has come to include.

Livelihood under Article 21 so as to include the word “life” as an explanation of the question again for the first time before the Supreme Court in Sant Ram came to the idea. Speaking through court Sinha, Chief Justice, the language of art, worked on it. 21 ‘individual freedom can not be suppressed, and this life into the concept of “right

livelihood court did not rule out entirely the right was rejected. The learned Chief Justice was of the opinion that as “right livelihood” mentioned in Article 19, freedom, especially in CL. (G) or Article 16 in the limited sense ”

Right to life and personal liberty ‘livelihood’ is involved in? The question then fixing the ceiling on agricultural holdings, land reform challenge was against the law

where BegullaBapi Raju V. Andhra Pradesh, was raised in. Sant Ram following the

court again, “life ” in the “liveliness” of Maneka and Francis Coralie rejected and the decision was not examined in the light of the above claims.

However, in the case of street dweller Chandarchud, chief justice, the right to life

includes the right to livelihood.He will deny, cancel observed. As an aspect of life under Article 21 developed by the court’s right to livelihood, so far “personal freedom” means to extend the reach would result in Only one person has the right to protect the livelihood of the standard. The court in Durgapur Projects Ltd. V. Shankar “decent housing” extended to include the right to live. The standard of living of the petitioner was entitled. To ensure minimum standards of human dignity for women and children in care homes “quality of life” was included .The High Court interpreted the right to life expansively, addressing within its ambit direct violations by state actors, such as extra-judicial killings by the police or security forces, or forced evictions by other government bodies, as well as the failure of state authorities to comply with their statutory duties in respect, of among others, protection of the environment and occupational health and safety laws[10].

Extra-Judicial Deaths : On 9 April 2006, the High Court directed the Government to show cause as to why the open firing by police on protestors in Kansat should not be declared to be without any lawful authority and why the authorities should not be directed to pay compensation to the bereaved families, and further to show cause as to why a minimum supply of electricity should not be provided to the people of the area.3 The Court also issued an interim direction upon the Government not to arrest any member of the Polli Bidyut Shongram Committee (PBSC) except in accordance with law.

These orders were made in a public interest litigation filed by ZI Khan Panna, the Chairman of the Bar Council’s Legal Aid and Human Rights Committee, in relation to two separate incidents of firing upon the Kansat protestors. First, on 4 January 2006, during a peaceful protest in Kansat by the PBSC, an organization of local electricity users demanding an adequate and uninterrupted supply of electricity to the area, the police opened fire without any warning, killing two persons. Then, on 23 January 2006, another eight individuals were killed when the police opened fire upon the demonstrators in Kansat to protest the arrest of three PBSC leaders; the police also allegedly forcibly entered homes and indiscriminately beat the residents. Later, on 6 April 2006, four more persons were killed in a bomb attack while protesting the previous killings. [11]

The High Court also gave orders in respect of continuing reports of extra-judicial killings by the security forces, in particular the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB). In a public interest petition filed by an NGO, Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB), the High Court on 6 August 2006 directed the Government and RAB to show cause within two weeks why they should not be directed to ensure the safety and security of the persons detained in RAB’s custody.[12]

Forced Evictions : The High Court provided protection to slum dwellers against arbitrary orders and actions for their forced eviction. Thus, on 25 June 2006, it stayed the operation of an order6 passed by the Housing Ministry purporting to deploy 250 police to carry out evictions in Kallyanpur Bosti , Mirpur, Dhaka, despite the pendency of earlier orders of stay.7 The Government then filed an application for vacating the order of stay but this was rejected by the Court on 24 July 2006, as nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant. Notwithstanding the stay order, the police continued to threaten the slum dwellers to leave the area or face forcible eviction.

Workplace Deaths : The High Court continued to seek responses from the Government regarding the enforcement of construction safety laws, in further orders made in a writ petition filed regarding the collapse of the factory building of Spectrum Sweater Industries, in Savar, Dhaka, which had resulted in the deaths of 71 workers.8 On 19 April 2006, the High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Dhaka, the Chief Inspector of Factories, RAJUK and the Chief Executive Officer of Savar Cantonment to submit reports within two weeks related to the legality of the construction of the building, ownership of land and safety condition of the building; although no such report was submitted by Government agencies, the BGMEA submitted a report prepared by engineers.

In an unprecedented step, the High Court directed the Chairman of Phoenix Garments to pay a total of Taka twelve million (amounting to Taka 300,000 for each of the bereaved families, Taka 200,000 for each of the critically injured survivors, and Taka 50,000 for those who sustained minor injuries) to the victims of the collapse of the Company’s building at Tejgaon Dhaka. Upon depositing this entire sum with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jalal Ahmed, the Chairman was then given bail.[13]

Failure to Protect the Environment : The High Court continued to develop its fairly well established case law extending the right to life to ensure environmental protection . In 2006, the High Court directed RAJUK not to fill the Gulshan Lake area, to maintain it in a prescribed manner, to cancel the allocation of the plot created through such earth filling, and to create no further plots, in a 1997 writ petition filed by ShirinShila, a Gulshan resident.

In another case, on 25 May 2006, the High Court directed the Department of Environment and the Savar Export Processing Zone Authority to show cause as to why it should not be declared that they had failed to discharge their statutory and constitutional duties of preventing pollution in the water bodies in Savar, 10 and ensuring that adequate waste treatment devices are installed in industrial units in and surrounding the Savar EPZ area including certain named industries as required under the Environment Conservation Act, 1995 and the Rules of 1997. The Court also issued an injunction upon the concerned companies directing them to cease any further release of toxic.

The High Court interpreted the right to life expansively, addressing within its ambit direct violations by state actors, such as extra-judicial killings by the police or security forces, or forced evictions by other government bodies, as well as the failure of state authorities to comply with their statutory duties in respect, of among others, protection of the environment and occupational health and safety laws.

Forced Evictions : The High Court provided protection to slum dwellers against arbitrary orders and actions for their forced eviction. Thus, on 25 June 2006, it stayed the operation of an order6 passed by the Housing Ministry purporting to deploy 250 police to carry out evictions in KallyanpurBosti , Mirpur, Dhaka, despite the pendency of earlier orders of stay.7 The Government then filed an application for vacating the order of stay but this was rejected by the Court on 24 July 2006, as nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant. Notwithstanding the stay order, the police continued to threaten the slum dwellers to leave the area or face forcible eviction.

In another case, on 25 May 2006, the High Court directed the Department of Environment and the Savar Export Processing Zone Authority to show cause as to why it should not be declared that they had failed to discharge their statutory and constitutional duties of preventing pollution in the water bodies in Savar, and ensuring that adequate waste treatment devices are installed in industrial units in and surrounding the Savar EPZ area including certain named industries as required under the Environment Conservation Act, 1995 and the Rules of 1997. [14]

3.5 Locus Standi expanding to ensure right to life:

It can safely be deduced from the criteria mentioned in this judgmental that PIL can mainly be entertained in the case of serious violation of fundamental right to life and liberty, for group rights of least advantaged and for protection of environment. Clauses 7 and 9 of paragraph no. 38 of the judgment seem to have Deviated from the earlier jurisprudence of locus standi developed by the Appellate Division in Dr. Mohiudin Farooque v. Bangladesh and ekushey Television Ltd v. Chowdhury Mahamood Hasan. Subsequent decision of the Appellate Division dated 03.07.2017 in 16th Amendment case followed the principles of Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque’s cse since the since the case was concerned with the protection of independence Clause 11 of paragraph no. 38 also seems not to be in the line of judicial principles as regards the scope of PIL enunciated in the Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque case. By the instant criteria, the redress against public wrong for the enforcement of the rule of law and petitions for protection of basic structure of the Constitution, against violation of the provisions of the Constitution, ensuring the independence of the judiciary, contempt of court for scandalizing the court are left out. [15]

In other words, many successful PIL cases filed by HRPB and other public spirited people and organization can hardly be entertained if the above criteria are followed strictly. However, the Appellate Division in the case of National board of Revenue vs. Abu Saeed Khan and others did not overrule the earlier decisions of the Appellate Division and therefore the principles expounded by the Appellate Division in the Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque case and other cases, pinnacle in their own regard, are still the governing and applicable principles in relation to locus st andi and justifiability as the those principles were followed in the latest case of the 16th Amendment of the Constitution. Further during the hearing of 16th Amendment case in both the Divisions, the case of National Board of Revenue vs. Abu Saeed Khan and others was referred and both the Divisions were not inclined to accept the criteria specified therein. It is submitted that in the case of National Board of Revenue vs. Abu Saeed Khan and others, the PIL petition failed not on the ground of locus standi but for lack of justiciability. However, to determine the locus st andi and justiciability. In PIL cases, the court has to put its endeavor to find out as to whether the principles already accepted in our jurisdiction in the earlier cases are applicable in the given facts and circumstances of a particular case. The court also must guard against the interloper/busybody from bringing any action under PIL for oblique purpose.

Chapter: 4.1

4.1 Comparative Development and Study of Public Interest Litigation in Various Jurisdictions:

The term ‘Public Interest Litigation’ is believed to have originated in the United States of America. It has been variously described in different jurisdictions. PIL is also known as Public Law Litigation in the USA Prof. Upendra Baxi of India prefers to describe this movement as Social Action Litigation (SAL). Since it is primarily concerned with challenging state repression and governmental lawlessness in order to eradicate the problems of social

Public Interest Litigation in Comparative Perspective inequality and discrimination, SAL seems to be a more appropriate description of this movement. Furthermore, Rajeev Dhavan uses the term ‘Public Interest Law’. The term ‘Public Interest Litigation’ was first used in the USA in the late 1960s and early 1970s when a special type of case sought to represent the underrepresented or unrepresented interests of the society in the law courts. It comes as a part of the greater movement of Public Interest Law that included legal aid movement, alternative dispute resolution, lobbying and so on. The commendable success of PIL in the USA subsequently influenced other jurisdictions including Canada, Australia and England.9 A brief discussion of the nature, evolution and practice of PIL in other jurisdictions would be helpful to understand the jurisprudence of PIL in the comparative perspective.

4.2 Constitutional analysis on Public Interest litigation in Bangladesh:

It is often argued that the Constitution of Bangladesh in its present form has made the President a titular one. It has shrunk the role of the President in such a manner that the President feels isolated in a larger constitutional canvas. But the President is gifted with a very unique power of seeking advisory opinion from the Supreme Court under Article 106, which runs as follows: “If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to the Appellate Division for consideration and the division may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report its opinion thereon to the President.” It is aspired that Article 106 may appear to be very significant to the newpresident in any probable juncture.It is often claimed that in case of seeking advisory opinion under Article 106, the President cannot swim beyond the wish of the government i.e. the Premier. In the face of any exigency of seeking any Reference to the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, the head of the state, it is said, is not constitutionally free to move on his own under Article 48 (3). Article 106 is said to be read with Article 48(3) which says that in the exercise of all his functions, save only that of appointing the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice, the President shall act in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister.Apart from this, it is further argued that under Parliamentary democracy, reintroduced in 1991 through 12th Amendment to the Constitution, the President constitutionally cannot apply Article 106 even if it is unanimous call of the people. There is at least an academic scope to argue that President’s power under Article 106 should not fall within the purview of Article 48(3) of the Bangladesh Constitution, which has restricted the exercise of the President’s function subject to the Prime Minister’s consent. It is high time to think whether President’s power of invoking advisory opinion can be forged and developed as a technical extension and isomer of Public Interest Litigation. It can be said that seeking advisory opinion of the Appellate.

4.3 Public Interest Litigation in India :

The development of PIL in India is believed to have been influenced and inspired by the development of its counterpart in America. SK Agrawala holds the view that the inspiration for PIL in India came from the American experience.23 However, the Indian Supreme Court innovated new methods and devised new strategies for the purpose of providing access to justice to large masses of the downtrodden and deprived people. They are the people who are denied their basic human rights and to whom freedom and liberty have no meaning at all in spite of the constitutional assurance for the same. Even after the lapse of more than three decades of Indian independence and promulgation of a democratic constitution avowing to bring justice, social, economic and political, the failure of the state to create a just, equal and egalitarian society free from oppression and exploitation caused unexpressed disillusionment among the people. The situation was further compounded during the emergency (1975 – 76) clamped by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. It was during this period that a nationwide movement for free legal services was launched as one of the key-points of the twenty point programme announced by Indira Gandhi. Many judges led by Justice Krishna Iyer and PN Bhagwati displayed a strong sense of social consciousness and became a part of a nationwide movement for legal services. The perception of the failure of the State to resolve the wide spread socio-economic problems motivated a number of conscious citizens, non-governmental organizations and social action groups to raise the voice against the miserable plight of such marginalized sections of the society, who were left with no choice but to knock at the door of the judiciary. This led to the birth of the innovative strategy of Public Interest Litigation intending to bring law into the service of the poor and the oppressed. The courts, through PIL, sought to rebalance the distribution of legal resources, increase the access to justice for the disadvantaged in order to secure social justice and make human rights and fundamental freedoms meaningful to them. In short, PIL in India emerged and developed as a most powerful and efficacious tool to render remedial justice through judicial process to the socially, economically and politically disadvantaged sections of the society. PM Bakshi, an Indian jurist, is of the opinion that the seeds of the concept of PIL were initially sown in India by Justice Krishna Iyer24 in 1976, who, in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdulbhai, without assigning this terminology, had observed: “Our adjectival branch of jurisprudence, by and large, deals not with sophisticated litigants but the rural people, the urban lay and the weaker societal segments for which law will be an added terror if technical misdescriptions and deficiencies in drafting pleadings and setting out the cause title create a secret weapon to non-suit a party. Where foul play is absent, and fairness is not faulted, latitude is a grace of processual justice. Test litigation, representative actions, pro bono publico and broadened forms of legal proceedings are in keeping with the current accent on justice to the common man and a necessary disincentive to those who wish to bypass the real issues on the merits by suspect reliance on peripheral procedural shortcomings.” Emphasizing the need for relaxing the traditional rule of ‘locus standi’ for espousing the cause of public interest before the law court, justice Krishna Iyer further observed: “Even Article 226, viewed on wider perspective, may be amenable to ventilation of collective or common grievances as distinguished from assertion of individual rights, … Public interest is promoted by a spacious constructions of locus standi in our socio-economic circumstances and conceptual latitudinarianism permits taking liberties with individualization of the right to invoke the Higher Courts where the remedy is shared by a considerable number, particularly when they are weaker.” However, it was in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India25 that the terminologies ‘Public Interest Litigation’ and ‘epistolary jurisdiction’ were first used by Justice Krishna Iyer. Justice Iyer had declared in this case, “law, as I conceive it, is a social auditor and this audit function can be put into action only when someone with real public interest ignites the jurisdiction.”

The first public interest case in the Indian Supreme Court was filed by Kapila Hingorani, a senior advocate, in 1979 in the form of a writ of habeas corpus, Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar27, bringing to light the fact of unlawful detention of 18 prisoners who were suffering detention awaiting trials for very long periods. This writ petition ultimately led to the revelation of over 80,000 such prisoners who were languishing in various prisons for long awaiting their trial to start. In the early 1980s and thereafter a good number of cases were brought before the court focusing on the interest of the public or vulnerable social segments. Those landmark cases helped in the construction of the new rules of standing. In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India Justice Krishna Iyer emphasized the need for evolving “a new strategy by relaxing this traditional rule of standing in order that justice may become easily available to the lowly and the lost and thus gave “a new dimension to the doctrine of ‘locus standi’, which has revolutionized the whole concept of access to justice in a way not known before to the western system of jurisprudence.”28 All this led to the liberalization of the rule of standing permitting thereby a member of the public, having no personal interest or oblique motive, to approach the court for the enforcement of the constitutional or legal rights of socially or economically disadvantaged persons who, on account of their poverty or total ignorance of their fundamental rights, are unable to enter the portals of the court for judicial redress. The most significant exposition of PIL jurisprudence came in the landmark verdict given by a seven member Bench presided by Justice PN Bhagwati in SP Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others (1982). “Today a vast revolution is taking place in the judicial process; the theater of law is fast changing and the problems of the poor are coming to the forefront. The court has to innovate new methods and devise new strategies for the purpose of providing access to justice to large masses of people who are denied their basic human rights and to whom liberty and justice have no meaning. The only way in which this can be done is by entertaining writ petitions and even letters from public spirited individuals seeking judicial redress for the benefit of persons who have suffered legal wrong or legal injury or whose constitutional and legal rights have been violated but who by reason of their poverty or economically disadvantaged position are unable to reach the court for relief.”29 In fact, the Supreme Court of India, in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration,30 for the first time accepted a letter written to the Supreme Court by Sunil Batra, an inmate of Tihar Jail Delhi, highlighting the inhuman torture inflicted on a fellow prisoner by the jail administration. The letter was treated as a writ petition, and while disposing that petition the apex court issued certain directions, including taking suitable action against the erring 27 AIR 1979 SC 1360. 28 3 SCC 235: AIR 1982 SC 1473. 29 AIR 1982 SC 149. 30 3 SCC 488: AIR 1980 SC 1579.

NJA Law Journal 2007 officials and also expanded the scope of habeas corpus to check the violations of fundamental rights of under trials and convicted prisoners. Thus the credit goes to some activist judges like Krishna Iyer and PN Bhagwati of the Indian Supreme Court for revolutionizing the whole concept of PIL. PIL is now deeply rooted in the Indian judicial system and has become a permanent feature of the humanitarian jurisprudence. The impact of the Indian experiments in PIL has been also felt in a number of SAARC countries which have common law based legal systems.

Chapter : 5

5.1 Role of Public Interest Litigation to enforce the right to life:

It is through using PIL, that environmental activists and social action groups have leamt about law and its limitations. By the 1990’s, PIL was being mobilised as one part of a stmggle in which the Court was not the major arena. The delays, the unwillingness of the Court to respond to basic questions and the poor implementation of Court decisions, have informed this perspective. Of the six environmental controversies discussed in a 1993 survey of the environment, documentation has been available for PIL cases filed in at least five: Chilika Lake in Orissa, the Narmada Project, the Konkan Railway, the East Coast Road and the Ganga Action Plan. It is interesting to note that law is mentioned in just two of the controversies, and it is only in an article by advocate M C Mehta that there is a lengthy discussion of the Supreme Court’s directives in a case relating to the pollution of the River Ganges.He notes that these directives only had the effect of controlling industrial pollution of the river, and not in implementing the broader-based Ganga Action Plan.[16]

■* Mehta, M C ‘Ganga action plan; Tied up in red tape’ in ‘ Survey of the Environment’, 127-131. The fervour created by this case cannot be underestimated leading to a discussion in the Lok Sahba, ‘Closure and shifting of industries following Supreme Court Judgement’, Lok Sabha Debates, Series 8 Session 10 Vol 39, 10/5/88, 271-72. The very threat of legal action is sufficient. whilst valuing the opportunities that law provides: It should however be kept in mind that although the legal scope [of PIL] is worth exploring, it must be accompanied by other forms of social action. … Financial and other resources will be required to carry on a sustained long-term struggle. Teams of committed lawyers and legal activists must also exist. Although the counsel for the villagers has been able to involve journalists, social activists and academics in the issue he also says ‘one cannot fight tanks with pillow cases’. Implementing whatever orders have been issued has also become a focus. After the order on noise pollution in the petition filed by the Consumer Action Group, the All India Catholic University Federation distributed the order amongst all the groups in Tamil Nadu working with consumers. In the absence of implementation, a contempt petition could then be filed with material in support of the petition and pressure from the public.[17]

Discussing the implementation of the Court’s orders in Banwasi Sewa Ashram,Prem Bhai described how, although the case only related to one factory and many of the claims had not been allowed by the Court, 15,000 claims were filed in local courts as a result of this petition. However six other factories have caused displacement in the area. In response the Ashram, together with another organisation REALS,has had to file local cases. Up to 1992, 213,000 cases were filed for the land entitlements of tribals in one district alone. The twenty-one advocates and fifty paralegals engaged in sorting out the displacement issues were insufficient.

Rural Entitlement and Legal Services is probably the full name of the organisation.

thus led to tens of thousands of claims and counter-claims being filed at a local level.Similarly, the petition filed by the Lok Adhikar Sangh would need local action for implementation of the High Court’s orders, as, in violation of these orders, the Sardar Sarovar project authorities started removing people without full resettlement. Construction of the dam continued and standards prescribed by the High Court and the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award were flouted. Despite the ban on blasting that eventually resulted from Kinkri Devi’s petition, blasting continued.Even the compensation awarded by the Supreme Court to the victims of the Sriram gas leak fell well within the scope the company’s insurance cover, rendering futile the Court’s pronouncement that compensation must have a deterrent effect, by encouraging the introduction of stricter safety mechanisms.

The one notable success in preventing a major project from being carried out was that of Silent Valley in Kerala where a dam was to have been constructed. The Kerala High Court did not uphold the claims of the petitioners, but support for the cause of the environmentalists, including that from the media and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, eventually prevented the construction of the dam.

5.2 Widening the range of the right to life:

It is the settled principle that the right to environment is as simple as the right to life. There is a bond between the environment and life. The existence of life on earth, ecology and environment, depending on the harmonious relationship. Especially Homo interaction with nature is very close. People at the center of concerns for sustainable development and a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature, you are entitled to be sure. With the rapid acceleration of science and technology, we have numerous ways and achieved an unprecedented scale, the ability to transform our environment, the evolution of the human race on this planet has reached a level. Humanity’s ability to transform his surroundings, if used wisely and with respect to the nature of the way, all people have an opportunity to improve the quality of life can bring. Incorrectly or heedlessly applied, or will apply iniquitous ways, the same amount of power, and incalculable harm to people not being able to. The growing evidence of the damage caused in many parts of the world that we see around dangerous levels of pollution in water, air, earth and living beings; irreparable destruction and loss of life and natural resources, and the unwanted disturbances in the Earth’s climate and the protective layer; gross deficiencies, physical, mental and Social health hazard, especially in the cities and industrial complexes in living and working environments, the. importance to recognize our dependence on the earth’s natural resources. Such as air, water, and land as well as natural resources are fundamental to all life forms: they are, money and economic infrastructure, our survival is much higher than the base. Humanity, has a large number of people, especially you. ‘Ecosystem people’ (in their own natural environment, depending on the material to meet the needs of most), the natural resource base of survival and livelihood. This depends on the material and their economic sustenance. India alone, around 70% of the population living on the land, forests, wetlands and marine habitats, depending on water, food, fuel, shelter, food and medicine necessary for basic subsistence livelihood and cultural environment as for the food. Given the close interdependence of people and their environment, society and culture, it is not surprising that so greatly influenced by their environment. They are in their natural surroundings inspiration, wisdom, spirituality and aesthetics ask. [18]

The natural environment is dependent upon not only the ‘ecosystem people’ are. All of it, S / he may be under the illusion that modern technology buffered by props who were living in Paris or Washington or even the urban rich. Industrializing growing city in the world, millions of people of all classes to the lung and skin diseases, water-borne diseases, and congenital abnormalities have from their food and water toxics, which is hundreds of kilometers away from the origin may be.

Under the Constitution the right to life and personal Liberty eighteenth century, originated with the rise of the modern state, which is a concept. The French Revolution of 1789 and the revolution that followed the declaration of the rights of the original imposition. Liberty of the right to life and personal liberty and dignity against his best to save the people of the state are growing in a rotted. When tested against the growth of the Indian Constitution is one of the research is relevant. Comparative approach to life and personal liberty, life, and assaults on individual freedom and personal liberty, and the range can be extended with the definition of the concept of the framework will throw light on the problems involved.

We know that Ecology and Environment is also right to life. The second phase of public interest litigation started sometime in the 1980’s and it related to the courts’ innovation and creativity, where directions were given to protect ecology and environment. One of the earliest cases brought before the Supreme Court related to oleum gas leakage in Delhi. In order to prevent the damage being done to environment and the life and the health of the people, the court passed number of orders. This is well-known as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India30. The court in this case has clearly laid down that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding area owes an absolute and non- delegable duty to the community to ensure that no such harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. Environmental PIL has emerged because of the court’s interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court in Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P 31 observed that every citizen has fundamental right to have the enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemplated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Anything which endangers or impairs by conduct of anybody either in violation or in derogation of laws, that quality of life and living by the people is entitled to take recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution. The case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India32, relates to pollution caused by the trade effluents discharged by tanneries into Ganga river in Kanpur. The court called for the report of the Committee of experts and gave directions to save the environment and ecology. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India33, this court ruled that precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are part of the environmental law of the country. This court declared Articles 47, 48A and 51A (g) to be part of the constitutional mandate to protect and improve the environment. In S. Jagannath v. Union of India34, the Supreme Court dealt with a public interest petition filed by the Gram Swaraj Movement, a voluntary organization working for the upliftment of the weaker section of society, wherein the petitioner sought the enforcement of Coastal Zone Regulation Notification dated 19.2.1991 and stoppage of intensive and semi-intensive type of prawn farming in the ecologically fragile coastal areas. The Court gave significant directions in the instant case. Right to health and Medical Care is right to life because a healthy body is the very foundation of all human activities. That is why the saying Sadhanama Sariramadyam Khalu religion. National constitutional and statutory right to health as well as laws have been recognized in international law. [19]

World Health Organization (WHO) health care system in relation to the list of 199 member countries, ranking 112 th place as India. In India, its people’s health and safety concern to the health care law enacted by government indicated.

Part IV of the Constitution, Articles 39, 47 and 48 are contained in a. Several legislative acts also factories, large-scale industrial enterprises and mines, people employed in the health of women and children as human health and protect the environment. These legislative enactments food safety law, labor law and environmental law and with the spirit of the Constitution, in fact, cover a wide range of fields, including agreements. The right to health has been recognized by the Supreme Court under Article 21 that a different indivisible rights. Gradation of the Indian Supreme Court, the right to health of the Indian Marshallian spirit of the Indian Constitution has been interpreted 21 and fascinatingly

International Convention principles and guidelines of the State, depending on the general legal doctrines, repeatedly broadened the scope of the policy, thus making them applicable.

India has been shown to encourage the community to protect human health and

the state of the judicial as well as administrative wings of an indifferent attitude in this respect is the way it is obvious that there is a duty to be accepted. The right to health has been recognized by the Supreme Court under Section 21 of the indivisible rights that are different.

The accumulation of soot in the lungs due to the Madhya Pradesh case, the age of

the young workers in industries related to the production of a pencil case, Pencil Manufacturing Industry in the State to be one of the first health-related public interest litigation filed in the Supreme Court.

The same may be said that the failure to construct, install the factory to ensure the necessary security measures. In Pt. India and others ParmahandKatara V. However, the Supreme Court is responsible for the patient’s innocent or a criminal penalty under the law, it’s a doctor on the obligation of the state to fulfill the constitutional obligation of the government hospital that saved lives by virtue of Section 21.

Justice Ranganath Mishra gave us the following languages: No law or state action to avoid interference / paramount obligation cast upon members of the medical profession can delay discharge. Obligations, the total is absolute and Paramount, will not interfere with the discharge of the obligations of the law, whether statutory or otherwise can not be sustained and, consequently, will give way.

Similarly, the West Bangal Khet Mazdoor Samiti V. State, the Supreme Court of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the injured are in violation of the public health consequences of the failure to timely treatment reasserted.

The seven-time medical instructions, and specifications: it is the constitutional obligation of the state to provide adequate medical care. The need for this has been.

Whatever the manager role, then the first stage of the recognition of the right to health and the growing role of the court in the case of Parmanand Dr. Chandra Prakash in the case of gradual development can be understood. [20]

Dr. Chandra Prakash, the Court of free medical care for victims of road accidents

fiscal resources by tapping the manager role. A.S. In Uttar Pradesh Mittal V. State, the Supreme Court follows the rules defined for the camp, and 84 patients had serious injuries caused by the state of Uttar Pradesh, ordered to pay compensation. India Panikurlangara V. Vincent It is a welfare state Supreme Court unions to create congenial conditions in sustaining good health and to ensure that the obligations of the state.

Directions import, manufacture, sale and distribution of drugs Drugs are proposed for a ban by the Supreme Court to seek for the consultative committee, and all types of drugs approved for cancellation of all licenses. On the importance of this trip can be seen in the light of recent international agreements. [21]

Follows that the right to life and health vis-A-vis the right of the Justice Ranganath Mishraa were observed: 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and assured the court the opportunity to live the good life with a guarantee to cover the defined disease, and free from the usual expectation longitivity treatment, including life.

Article 21 of the Supreme Court of coverage of employees in occupational health

hazards brought. An employee at the time of service or post retirement health and vigor to protect the right to health and medical directive in Section 39 (e) of the policy, 41, 43, and fall under Section 21 has been held to be a fundamental right of individuals 47 and with dignity, meaningful and purposeful lives all workers basic human rights.

Kirloskar Brothers Limited V. Employee State Insurance Corporation, the Supreme Court of the right to health workers basic rights and against the state and its instrumentalities are available not only in the private industry.

India’s Murali Deora V. S. However, the Supreme Court banned smoking in public smoking is injurious to health and that the Constitution recognizes the right to health under 21. Punjab and others V. Mohinder Singh Chawla, a government official in the state is reimbursed the cost of his medical expenses. However, obliging the state to provide health constitutionally entitled to such benefits extension Punjab V. Ram Lubhaya Bagga was checked state.

Chapter : 6

6.1 Comparative study on enforcing right to life through PIL in Bangladesh and India:

Right to life enforcement in India has got satisfactory level than Bangladesh. Though the History of PIL starts from India, Bangladesh has been trying to bring excellence in enforcing right to life as guaranteed under article 32 of the constitution of Bangladesh. In fact, the achievement in PIL is far better than the last 10 years in Bangladesh. It is relevant to mention that now a days the concept of right to life in Bangladesh has been widened by the judicial decisions of the Courts. It is a matter of hope that Bangladesh is about to compete with the race of right to life enforcement of India. In the last couple of years, we find enormous booming of PIL in Bangladesh, more particularly, the PIL of right to life enforcement. These are the important cases Bangladesh sets example of enforcing right to life:

Writ Petition No. 324 of 2009-Ensuring Pure Food
Writ Petition No.1190 of 2009-Stop Vat in health Service.
Writ Petition No. 3503 of 2009-Save the rivers Buriganga, Balu, Turag and Shitalakkha
Writ Petition No. 9329 of 2008-Arrangement of Earthquake rescue equipme
Writ Petition No. 945 of 2011-Protectin of Uttara Lake in Dhaka
Writ Petition No.3676 of 2010-Save the Water of Buriganga River and to stop the sewerage line.
Writ Petition No. 626 of 2011-Protection of Cox Bazar sea beach area
Writ Petition No. 5959 of 2011-Stop hill cutting at Cox Bazar
Writ Petition No.6930 of 2010-Stop the use of tannery waste in poultry

National Board of Revenue v. Abu Saeed Khan and others.

It is apparent from the cases mentioned above that in Bangladesh, jurisdiction of both the concepts of locus standi as well as justifiability (scope) have been given liberal meaning and thus PIL has come forward to deliver redress from many public wrongs. However, in a recent case of National Board of Revenue vs. Abu Saeed Khan and others, the Appellate Division took a narrower view in relation to the concept of locus standi in PIL cases.

Example -1 : Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & others Writ Petition No. 7422/1997 (Gulshan Lake Fill-up) : A division bench of the High Court Division issued a Rule in a petition filed in 1997 against implementation of an agreement called the “Banani, Gulshan, Baridhara Lake Development Project Agreement” signed between RAJUK and Indus Valley Investment Pvt. Ltd. to undertake a huge construction in the said areas, defying and violating the constitutional and legal requirements. The Court directed them to show cause as to why “the agreement and the subsequent agreements to lease out a total area of 220 acres of public land should not be declared to have been entered/undertaken without lawful authority in violation of law and the constitution against public interest and as such be declared null and void and of no legal effect.” The Government subsequently cancelled the project. Example -2 : Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 3916 of 2006 (MT Alfaship not to be Allowed to Proceed Further) : A writ petition filed by BELA challenging the legality of the entry of the vessel MT Alfaship (listed as one of the 50 dangerous ships by the Green Peace) into the territorial waters of Bangladesh for scrapping purposes has been moved on 2nd May, 2006 before a division bench of the High Court comprising Mr. Justice Awlad Ali and Mr. Justice ZinatAra. Upon hearing the petition, the Hon’ble Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why their failure to prevent the entry of MT Alfaship into the territorial waters of Bangladesh and why the arrival of the vessel MT Alfaship without the approval of the DG, Department of Shipping shall not be declared to be without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. The Rule has been made returnable for 3 weeks. The Court has further required the government to show cause as to why it should not be directed to take steps for banning importation to Bangladesh any of the 50 ships identified as hazardous by the Green Peace. Pending hearing the rule, the Court has directed the Director General, Coast Guard, the Director General, Department of Shipping, the Collector of Customs and the Chairman, Chittagong Port Authority not to allow the vessel MT Alfaship to proceed further towards Chittagong Port or the internal water of Bangladesh for the next two months. Worth mentioning considering the environmental hazards that breaking of MT Alfaship may cause to the environment, the Green Peace has listed the ship amongst the 50 most hazardous ships. The Directorate of Shipping, on consideration of the environmental hazards of the ship, has successively refused to allow opening of L/C for importing the ship for scrapping purposes. Despite the warning of Green Peace and the refusal of the Directorate of Shipping, MT Alfaship has already entered the outer anchorage of Bangladesh for scrapping purposes the legality of which has been challenged by BELA. The rule has been made absolute. Conclusion The prerogative powers of writ jurisdiction conferred by the constitution for judicial review of administrative action is undoubtedly discretionary and yet unbounded in its limits. The discretion however should be exercised on sound legal principles. In this respect it is important to emphasis that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which the whole constitution system is based. In a system governed by rule of law when discretion is conferred upon the executive authorities it must be based on clearly defied limits.

The Petition was filed with legal assistance from Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) by Mr. Sharif NurulAmbia, Joint General Secretary of (JSD).

The Petition was moved by the Secretary General of BELA, Dr. MohiuddinFarooque submitting that the DCC has undertaken the construction of the multi storied building at the site earmarked for public car park in the RAJUK Master Plan unlawfully and without the latter’s approval and hence liable to be demolished. It was further submitted that the construction was continuing defying DoE’s finding that the said building would create a disruption to the environment of the area and the neighborhood depriving them the right to life, body and healthy environment against hazardous pollution and obstruction to air and light as being endangered by the unauthorized construction by the Respondents.

Upon hearing the petitioner, the Court stayed the said construction till disposal of suit. The rule was ultimately disposed of against which an appeal is pending before the Appellate Division.

Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & others (Writ Petition No.998/94)Sekandar Ali Mondol v. Bangladesh and others (Writ Petition No.1576/1994) (Challenging Flood Action Plan-20)

In 1994, a Petition was filed by BELA challenging the implementation of Flood action Plan-20 in Tangail. The Petition, first rejected by Court on the ground of Standing of the Petitioner was subsequently sent for hearing on merit to the High Court after the Appellate Division granted standing (Bangladesh Legal Decisions, (BLD) 1997 Appellate Division (AD), pg.1).

In the petition, the authorities were accused of violating a number of laws that provide for compensating affected people for all sorts of loss and protecting the national heritage. The Court delivered Judgment on 28 August ’97 and observed that “… in implementing the project the respondents cannot with impunity violate the provisions of law. We are of the view that the FAP-20 project work should be executed in complying with the requirements of law.”

Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & Others WP No.891/1994 (Industrial Pollution Case)

The Notification of 7th August 1986 directed the Department of Environment (DoE), the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the Ministry of Industries to ensure within three years that appropriate pollution control measures were undertaken by those industries. The Notification also required the said authorities to ensure that no new industry could be set up without pollution fighting devices. But unfortunately, even after the lapse of eight years when no measure was taken the above Petition was filed.

BELA v. Bangladesh and others

Writ Petition No 4919/2010 (Nimtoli-Fire, Dhaka)

The writ petition was filed jointly by BELA, ASK, BLAST, BRAC and IAB on 10 June, 2010 against the failure of the concerned authorities to prepare adequately and effectively for preventing and fighting against fire break outs in the City and to ensure safety of the inhabitants of the township and prevent unauthorized expansion of hazardous industrial activities in the City particularly in the high density township of the Old Dhaka.

BELA v. Bangladesh and others

Writ Petition No. 6848/2009 (St. Martin’s Island)

The petition sought for directions upon respondents to regulate commercial tourism in the ecologically fragile Island of the St. Martins and to prevent the indiscriminate and unauthorized constructions of hotels, motels, restaurants etc. in the said island. On 18 October, 2009, the Honorable High Court issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be directed to act upon their legal mandates in regulating tourism in the Island of St. Martin and in demolishing all unauthorized, unlawful and illegal contractions of commercial houses in the said Island. Moreover, an order of injunction was passed restraining respondents from constructing all unauthorized new commercial buildings for a period of 3 (three) months. Rule returnable within 4 (four) weeks from the date. Also on 15.1.2010, the order of injunction was extended till disposal of the Rule.

BELA vs. Bangladesh & Others;

Writ Petition No. 2393 of 2010 (Ramnabad River of Barisal)

The petition was filed for a direction to restore river area of the Ramnabad of Patuakhali district under Barisal division in its original position by removing the earth filled and the wall erected by respondent No.5 (Mr. Golam MowlaRony, the then MP, 113, Patuakhali-3, for constructing stadium, children’s park and market thereon. On 5 April, 2010 the honourable High Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the filling of the river area of the Ramnabad and the erecting of the wall thereon by respondent No.5 shall not be declared as illegal, without any lawful authority and against public interest and why the respondents shall not be directed to restore the river area in the original position and such other/further order passed as to this Court may be seem fit and proper.

BELA vs. Bangladesh & Others

Writ Petition No. 2434 of 2014 (Discharging of Dam built in the River Bangali of Dhunot, Bogra)

A writ petition was filed by BELA to keep normal water flow in the river Bangali of Dhunotupazila in Bogra. After primary hearing, the honourable Court ordered the Ministry of Environment, Director General of WAPDA and DC of Bogra to make report to the Court after discharging the dam that is built on a branch of the Bangali River within 4 weeks. The Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why shall not be ordered to protect the river. It is also instructed in the Rule that, why shall not be taken compensation from the concerned person for damaging river ecosystem by creating dam in the river. A High Court Division bench combined with justice Mirja Hossain Hayder and justice Muhammad Khurshid Alam Sharkar gave this instruction.

Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque vs. Bangladesh & Others

Writ Petition No.891 of 1994 (Industrial Pollution Case)

In 1994 BELA filed this Writ Petition seeking relief against indiscriminate pollution of air, water, soil and the environment by 903 industries of 14 sectors identified as polluters by the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives (LGRDC) vide Gazette notification dated 7 August 1986. The 14 sectors include Tanneries, Paper and Pulp, Sugar Mills, Distilleries, Iron and Steel, Fertilizer, Insecticide and Pesticide Industries, Chemical Industries, Cement, Pharmaceuticals, Textile, Rubber and Plastic, Tyre and Tube and Jute. After seven years since the date of filling of the petition on the 15 July of 2001, the court has directed the Directed General, Department of Environment to implement the decision taken with regard to mitigation of pollution by 903 industries identified as polluters within the time frame of six months from the date of the judgment. The Petitioner pleaded that the ecological system of the country more particularly the air and water including the major rivers are being severely affected by the identified 903 industries and that no affirmative action has been taken in furtherance of the decisions of the Gazette dated 7th August, 1986. Rather the number of polluting industries has multiplied as the recent list prepared by the DoE shows that the number of polluting industries have raised up to 1176. The Court earlier issued Rule Nisi to the Respondents including the LGRDC, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Ministry of Industries and Department of Environment.

BELA vs. Bangladesh & Others Writ Petition No. 6072 of 2010 (Housing)

A division bench of the High Court Division comprising Mr. Justice Wahab Miah and Justice Kazi Rezaul Haque has directed the govt. to take effective measures for preventing the advertisement and earth filling and selling plots in the unauthorized private housing projects. The direction came in a writ petition filed by five environmental and urban planning groups including BELA, Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), BAPA, Institute of Architects Bangladesh (IAB) and POBA.

BELA vs. Banglaresh and Others

Writ Petition No. 8603 of 2005 (Stone crushing mill in residential area at Jaflong)

A Writ Petition was filed on 4 December, 2005 where Rule Nisi was issued by the Court calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the unauthorized establishment and operation of stone crushing mills/machines in the Jaflong Forest area in Jaintapur and GoainghatUpazilas shall not be declared to be in violation of laws, against public interest and as such illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court also directed the concerned authorities to evict the illegal stone crushers from the protected and ecologically sensitive forest area of Jaflong, to prevent any further unlawful and unauthorized activities of stone crushing in the said area and to realize compensation for the said illegal and destructive activities.

“Abuse of power and authority by the law enforcing agency resulting in torture and rape in police custody and promoting the other persons to be involved in torture and solemnization of child marriage”.

ASK is the petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation which has been filed with a Special Original Jurisdiction in the High Court Appellate Division in 2014. The Writ Petition has been filed as an application under Article 102 of the constitution of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh.

The Respondents are-

Secretary, Ministry of Home affairs, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka.
Inspector General of police, Police Head Quarters, Fulbaria, Dhaka

iii. Superintendent of Police, district- Pirozpur.

Officer In Charge, Nazirpur police station, District –Pirozpur
Abdur Rahman, Assistant Sub-Inspector, Nazirpur, District-Pirozpur
Moulovoi Mujahidulislam, Zafor Mia, son of Abdus Salam Miah, of Village- Baksi, Seikhmati Union Parishad, Upozilla :Najirpur, Dist. : Pirojpur

vii. AshimMistri, Teacher, Baksi S.M DarusSunnatDakhi Madrasah.

BELA vs. Bangladesh and others Writ Petition No. 11594 of 2006 (Pollution caused by a polythene factory at Keranigonj).

A Writ was filed against the establishment and operation of a Plastic & Polythene Recycling Factory named Hafsa Enterprise. After hearing the Petitioner, the Court issued a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the establishment and operation of the Hafsa Enterprise without obtaining any environmental clearance certificate and adopting pollution fighting devices being violative of the provisions of the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act, 1995, the Environment Conservation Rules, 1997, the Factories Act, 1965 and the Factories Rules, 1979 and threatening the fundamental rights of the villagers as guaranteed under Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution shall not be declared to be illegal, without lawful authority and having no legal effect and why the respondents shall not be directed to take effective remedial measures to prevent the unauthorized and unlawful activities of respondent No. 9 as sanctioned and required under the applicable laws.

Pending hearing of the Rule, the Court also passed an interim order of injunction restraining the owner of the factory from continuing with his polythene recycling operations in the name of Hafsa Enterprise (Plastic & Polythene Recycling Factory) situated and operating in village Kamarta, under Keranigongupazila, Dhaka.

In the Writ petition No:1613 of 2014, the Hon’ble Court held that “We have perused the writ petition, affidavit-in-opposition and supplementary affidavit thereto and considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.

It appears that the Daily Prothom Alo on 02.06.2014 reported the Sylhet Agricultural University by cutting hill/tilas are constructing their hostel for 500 students. From the report it further revealed that the university authority declared the tila as the reserved tilas for rare species of tees in the year 2009 and the university also established “Agro-Forest Germ Plasam Centre” on 07.07.2009 on the said tilas wherein the students of the Department of Agro Forestry and Environmental Science as joint venture project with the Hamdard Laboratory planted 300 rare species trees. It is very clear from the law that for the purpose of greater national interest the environmental authority can issue clearance certificate for cutting the hill/tilas.

Considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances we think that it will be fit and proper if we direct the Department of Environment to dispose of the application of the university, if any, for according permission for cutting hill/tilas for construction of the hostel in the name of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman which is within the master plan of the university and approved by ECNEC within a short period and the university authority as per permission of the environmental authority will construct their building. Accordingly, the Director General of the Environment is hereby directed to dispose of the application of the University authority if any, within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of this judgment and the University authority will construct their building after according permission of the department of environment.

Accordingly, the Rule is disposed of.”

In a writ petition filed by Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh(HRPB) being Writ petition No:6969 of 2016, The Hon’ble Court held that the life of human being is dependent on drugs and medicine as they save life from being decayed and death. It is so pertinent and necessary to life that it has become a basic need of people around the globe. It is the common responsibility of all to keep the people’s health safe and sound within everybody’s means. But as per the reports of the dailies, some drugs manufactures have made the life of common people uneasy and have brought sufferings to the life of the common people due to gain in inconsiderate profit, only by producing less quality drugs/medicine ignoring the GMP policies. Hence, the common people suffer a lot, which severe impact on public health, which can not be allowed by this Court. In every moment the life of the citizen are depending on medicine available in the market but due to some inconsiderate manufacturers of drugs/medicine without following the GMP guideline caused the suffering for people. It is necessary to stop production of antibiotic/drugs/medicine which are producing violating the GMP guideline in order to save the health of the citizen, otherwise the people will suffer a lot, which would have a severe bad impact on the life of the citizen and it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by he Constitution of Bangladesh. IN the report there is specific allegation against the respondent Nos. 12, 20 and 21 along with Globe Laboratories, Jalpha Laboratories, Medico Pharmaceuticals, Rid Pharmaceuticals, Kafma and Star Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for production of medicine illegally and those industries have to be closed down. Under these circumstances they should be dealt with in accordance with law. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 are to take legal steps against them for their criminal offence under provision of law. The respondent Nos. 20 and 15 made submission and they have GMP certificate but it is controversial because in the report it was not revealed that they are following GMP rules. So the respondent No.1 is directed to form a committee consisting of 5 members, one member from the expert committee, If any application is filed by respondent No.15 and 20 or any Pharmaceuticals Industries for GMP license, the respondent No.4 will send it to the committee and after submitting the report if it is positive the respondent No.1 is at liberty to issue GMP license otherwise they should not issue license.

Therefore for the safety and security of the public interest it should be looked into that the production of the medicine/drugs are to be produced as per law and as per GMP. The Committee as we have suggested to be formed and only on their recommendation necessary action for production to be taken. yet they are to be mentioned in all those aspect whether those are going on production properly and to report to the authority concerned in every 6 months. The Drugs Administration from time to time at least thrice in a month should see whether they are production their medicines as per GMP and for that matter a committee consisting of 5 members should be constituted. One member from the expert committee, one expert selecting from WHO Dhaka Office, one representative from Drugs Administration, one expert selected by the respondent No.1 and a professor of Pharmacy from Dhaka University on whose recommendation only the parties can go on production and it is for the benefit of the people. We therefore, with this direction made the Rule absolute in part.

In writ petition No: 2618 of 2117 filed by Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh(HRPB), the Hon’ble Court held that “The Learned Advocate Mr. Manzil Murshid, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that it is the fundamental rights of the common people, the citizens that they are entitled to have quality medicine/drugs/antibiotic. In the absence of quality medicines, the right to life of the citizens are violated. Moreover, as per Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh the fundamental human rights of the citizens in the republic must be guaranteed, Medicinal treatment is one of the fundamental human rights of citizens. So no authority can show any negligence in any way to this right. Rather it is the duty of the government to give full support for arranging effective and quality medicine for the safety of the citizen. But without keeping in mind about the Constitutional obligations the respondents failed to take any steps to stop production of less quality or adulterated medicine and ultimately the peoples are deprived from proper medicine. Therefore it requires interference by this court. Further he submit s that due to less quality or adulterated medicine, the lives of the people fall in a dangerous situation, which is violation of Article 18(1) of the Constitution of Bangladesh. The respondents are always duty bound to serve the people and to perform their duties. But they have failed to perform their duties because of their inactions. They did not take any steps against the manufactures of drugs/medicine, they are producing less quality medicine. Inaction of the respondents to stop production of less quality drugs/medicine has caused serious sufferings to public health. Hence a direction may be given upon the respondents to stop production and sale any kinds of drug/medicine of Antibiotic (Penicillin, Cephalosporin), Storied/Hormone and Anti-cancer medicine by the 28 Pharmaceuticals Industries. The respondents being the responsible persons and the responsible bodies, they are duty bound to abide by laws and regulations, and as such it is necessary to stop illegal production otherwise would have a severe bad impact on the life of the citizen and as such interference of this court is very much essential.

Since the learned advocates have stated that there should be time limit for formation of such committee, under such situation within 15 days from date of receipt of this order, the committee shall be formed to observe the production.

We therefore, with this direction made the Rule absolute in part.”

One of the earliest cases of public interest litigation was that reported as Hussainarra Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar this case was concerned with the series of Articles published in a prominent news paper – the Indian Express which exposed the plight of under trial prisoners in the state of Bihar. A writ petition was filed by an advocate drawing the court’s attention to the deplorable plight of these prisoners. Many of them had been in jail for longer periods than the maximum permissible sentences for the offences they had been charged with. The Supreme Court accepted the locus standi of the advocate to maintain the writ petition thereafter a series of cases followed in which the court gave the directions through which the right to speedy trial was deemed to be integral and essential part of the protection of life and personal liberty.

Soon thereafter, two noted professors of law filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court highlighting various abuses of the law, which, they asserted, were a violation of the Article 21 of the constitution . These included inhuman conditions prevailing in protective homes, long pendency of trials in court, trafficking of women, importation of children for homosexual purposes, and the non-payment of wages to bonded laborers among others. Thus, the Supreme Court accepted there locus standi to represent the sufferings masses and past guidelines and orders that greatly ameliorated the conditions of these peoples.

Public Interest Litigation require a new dimension namely that of ‘epistolary jurisdiction’ with the decision in the case Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration , it was initiated by a letter that was written by a prisoner lodged in jail to a judge of Supreme Court. The prisoner complained of a brutal assault committed by a head warder on another prisoner. The court treated letter as a writ petition, and , while issuing the various directions, opined that “…technicalities and legal niceties are no impediment to the court entertaining even an informal communication as a proceeding for Habeas Corpus if the basic facts are found”.

In Municipal Council ,Ratlam v. Vardichand the court recognized the locus standi of the group of local citizens who sought directions against the local Municipal Council for removal of open drains that cost stench as well as diseases. The court, recognizing the right of group of citizens, asserted that if the:

“..centre of gravity of justice is to shift as indeed the preamble to the constitution mandates, from the traditional individualism of locus standi to the community orientation of public interest litigation, the court must consider the issues as there is needed to focus on the ordinary men.”

In Parmanand Katara v. Union of India ,the Supreme Court accepted an application by an advocate that highlighted the news item titled “Law Helps the Injured to Die”, The Hindustan Times. The petitioner brought to light the difficulties faced by persons injured in road and other accidents in availing urgent and life saving medical treatments, since many hospitals and doctors refuse to treat them unless certain procedural formalities were completed in these medico-legal cases. the Supreme Court directed medical establishments to provide instant medical aid to such injured people, not-withstanding the formalities to be followed under the procedural criminal law.

In many other instances, the Supreme Court has risen to the changing needs of society and taken proactive steps to address these needs. It was therefore the extensive liberalization of the rule of locus standi which gave birth to a flexible public interest litigation system. A powerful thrust to public interest litigation was given by a seven judge bench in the case of S.P.Gupta v. Union of India . The judgment recognized the locus standi of bar associations to file writs by way of public interest litigation. In this particular case, it was accepted that they had legitimate interest in questioning the executives policy arbitrarily transferring High Court Judges, which threatened the independence of the judiciary. Explaining the liberalization of the concept of locus standi, the court opined :

“It must now be regarded as well settled law where a person who has suffered a legal wrong or a legal injury or those legal right or legally protected interest is violated, is unable to approach the court on account of some disability or it is not practicable for him to move the court for some other sufficient reasons such as his socially or economically disadvantaged position,, some other person can invoke the assistance of the court for the purpose of providing judicial redress to the person wronged or injured, so that the legal wrong or injury caused to such person does not go un-redressed and justice is done to him.”

The unique model of public interest litigation that has evolved in India not only looks at issues like consumer protection, gender justice, prevention of environmental pollutions and ecological destruction, it is also directed towards finding social and political space for the disadvantaged and the other vulnerable groups in society. The courts have given decisions in cases pertaining to different kinds of entitlements and protection such as the availability of food, access to clean air, safe working conditions, political representations, affirmative action, anti-discriminations majors and the regulation of prison conditions among others. For instance, in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India , a petition was brought against governmental agencies which questioned the employment of underage laborers and the payment of wages prescribed statuary minimum wage levels to those involved in the construction of facilities for the then upcoming Asian Games in New Delhi. The court took serious exception to these practices and ruled that they violated constitutional guarantees. The employment of children in construction related jobs clearly fell foul of the constitution prohibition on child labor and the non payment of minimum wages was equated with the extraction of forced labor.

Similarly, in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India , the Supreme Courts attention was drawn to the widespread incidence of the age old practice of bonded labor which persists despite the constitutional prohibition. Among other interventions, one can refer to the Shriram Food & Fertilizer Case where the court issued directions to employ to check the production of hazardous chemicals and gases that endangered the life and health of workmen. It is also through the vehicle of PIL, that the Indian courts have come to adopt the strategy of awarding monetary compensation for constitutional wrongs such as unlawful detention, custodial torture and extra judicial killings by state agencies.

It is a settled law that when a person approaches the court of equity in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, he should approach the court not only with clean hands but with clean mind, heart and with clean objectives.

In the case of M.C Mehta V. Union of India – In a Public Interest

Litigation brought against Ganga water pollution so as to prevent any further pollution of Ganga water. Supreme Court held that petitioner although not a riparian owner is entitled to move the court for the enforcement of statutory provisions, as he is the person interested in protecting the lives of the people who make use of Ganga water.

Parmanand Katara V. Union of India – Supreme Court held in the Public

Interest Litigation filed by a human right activist fighting for general public interest that it is a paramount obligation of every member of medical profession to give medical aid to every injured citizen as soon as possible without waiting for any procedural formalities.

Voluntary organization

Council for Environment Legal Action V. Union of India7 -: Public Interest

Litigation filed by registered voluntary organization regarding economic degradation in coastal area. Supreme Court issued appropriate orders and directions for enforcing the laws to protect ecology.

Report of research paper or newspaper

A report entitled “Treat Prisoners Equally HC” published in The Tribe, Aug 23 Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the provisions of jail manual dividing prisoners into A, B & C classes after holding that there cannot be any classification of convicts on the basis of their social status, education or habit of living .This is a remarkable ruling given by High Court by declaring 576-A paragraph of the manual to be ” Unconstitutional”.

During the last few years, Judicial Activism has opened up a new dimension for the judicial process and has given a new hope to the millions who starve for their livelihood. There is no reason why the Court should not adopt activist approach similar to Court in America, so as to provide remedial amplitude to the citizens of India.

Supreme Court has now realized its proper role in welfare state and it is using its new strategy for the development of a whole new corpus of law for effective and purposeful implementation of Public Interest Litigation. One can simply approach to the Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights by writing a letter or post card to any Judge. That particular letters based on true facts and concept will be converted to writ petition. When Court welcome Public Interest Litigation, its attempt is to endure observance of social and economic programmers frame for the benefits of have-nots and the handicapped. Public Interest Litigation has proved a boon for the common men. Public Interest Litigation has set right a number of wrongs committed by an individual or by society. By relaxing the scope of Public Interest Litigation, Court has brought legal aid at the doorsteps of the teeming millions of Indians; which the executive has not been able to do despite a lot of money is being spent on new legal aid schemes operating at the central and state level. Supreme Court’s pivotal role in expanding the scope of Public Interest Litigation as a counter balance to the lethargy and inefficiency of the executive is commendable

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

This case was against sexual harassment at work place, brought by Bhanwari Devi to stop the marriage of a one year old girl in rural Rajasthan. Five men raped her. She faced numerous problems when she attempted to seek justice. Naina Kapoor decided to initiate a PIL to challenge sexual harassment at work place, in the supreme court.

6.2 Recent Development of the concept of right to life in Bangladesh:

In Bangladesh very recently the Honorable High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh pronounces a land mark judgment in writ petition no 13979 of 2016. The Honorable of Court in its judgment brought a very lively term stating all the river vessels of Bangladesh are to be considered as of having life and created as living beings. In this judgment, the concept of long awaited expression of right to life has been made and acknowledged. The concept of right to life got a new dimension in Bangladesh. Through the judgment, the broad range of right to life has been come to light.

Chapter 7

7.1 Findings:

By carrying out the research, it has beenvery much clear to me that the application and enforcement of right to life is highly satisfactory in India than Bangladesh. The concept of right to life even took a turn from India to our country in the late 80s.

In India, execution of judicial decisions takes faster hour where as in Bangladesh vice versa is found.

Research, exercise, applicability, potentiality, judicial activism is very often found in India, on the contrary in Bangladesh the volume of such practices is found few and far between.

In law and legal fraternity of Bangladesh and India, the concept of PIL and right to life is well -understood but in the mind of the rank and file, the flash and concept of right to life is hardly been found.

I also found that the socio-economic status of the country is a significant factor to make help enforce the spirit of right to life.

With much emphasis I feel like to mention that a growing tendency of non-obeying tendency of laws and wrong doing trends in the mind of mass people of Bangladesh is more particularly responsible passively for not being able to be as faster as India in ensuring the right to life.

In Bangladesh, to common people, PIL indicates litigations for poor community; but the very application of PIL is skyrocketing and it is for all.

However, in doing the research I found the field level officers or staff are negligent and show their whimsical attitude in performing and executing the judicial decisions regarding the enforcement of right to life.

But I realized that the condition of PIL has been a little bit better in Bangladesh now.

After the absolute enforcement of right to life, quality life, healthy and reasonable happy life will be possible in Bangladesh.

The concept of the right to life is not widely comprehensible till date in Bangladesh for which we are lagging behind in this aspect than India.

No telling to say that mass awareness on the concept of right to life can make help us to reach a better footing in future to enforce right to life in Bangladesh.

PIL can play a vital role in safeguarding the constitution of the states and country too.

Above all my thorough finding is that in this sector radical change is crying need since the spirit of right to life is being curtailed and vitiated by the state machineries in every now and then in Bangladesh , India as well.

7.2 Recommendations:

From my point of view ,it is beyond question or doubt that without having united and untired efforts of the govt. machineries to protect and enforce the right to life in Bangladesh will seem to be day dream and as such concerted efforts can bring to light our opted trigger of enforcement of right to life through public interest litigation.
From the research point of view and through analysis of my research monogram what I feel like to recommend is that Mass media , law enforcement agencies, social workers , all state machineries , political parties and intellectuals , professionals of every four walls of Bangladesh coming into an unique platform and standing at a point can , need and should utter the voice and take vow to enforce and protect the spirit of the right to life for every citizens in Bangladesh .
I firmly believe and have reason to believe that The Executives department of the state must be determined and dedicated to remain unchanged the spirit of the Constitution of Bangladesh to ensure and enforce the right to life as guaranteed by article 32 of the constitution; and other constitutional rights of the citizens by earnest trying.
Apart from this, I would like to say and urge the concerned that awareness about the scope of right to life must get escalated and then the judicial decisions and judgments should have to be executed in time with care and responsibility.
There is no denying fact that those who plead for enforcement of right to life in the legal fraternity have to put up with untold pains and threats from the interested parties and even from the government and as such my whole-hearted recommendation to the concerned to ensure the best security of those pleaders .
Furthermore, I think systematic, tooth & nail efforts of rank and file will, carry into effect of enforcement and protection of right to life at the same time bring to light a wider window to count down our evil thoughts, deeds and so on from our behavior.
It is highly expected that law enforcing agencies will stick to gun to maintain, respect and bear the spirit of article 32 – the right to life of the citizens of Bangladesh.

7.3 Conclusions:

The concept of right to life is widely being dealt with by professionals, judges and the resource persons in Bangladesh and India bit by bit. Until and unless the broaden idea will knock at the conscious mind of the judges, advocates and stake holders, the judicial decisions centering this may become slow down. It is worth stating that the comparison in respect of booming the span of enforcing right to life between Bangladesh and India expressed and disclosed certain limitations and hopes too to find the way outs.

Importantly it can be said that a lion share of public interest litigation can be invoked only by the term right to life. Whatever we think in nature of PIL is also to be considered for protection of right to life. As many as we can identify the deadlocks and latches of the enforcement of right to life we will be able to dream a lot to gear up the wheel of acceleration of the PIL. There is a good sign that many learned friends are working on PIL now a days.

We can, need and should come forward for bringing a rhythm in the development of PIL sector.

At the bottom line of my research, I would like to convene to all to be open minded and dedicated enough to snatch the crown of success stories in Bangladesh.

More specifically, one more issue I prefer to mention here that all the limitations, barriers and mal-practice in connection with PIL should be washed away in no time . I strongly believe that this research, findings and analysis of the legal analytical issues and terms made me enriched much than that I was earlier. To wrap up, I feel like to utter that paddling on the bicycle requires a good balancing capacity and stopping the paddling may result imbalance like as in legal profession we should not stop learning and researching which may put a full stop in our life and profession.

Bibliography:

List of Statutes

The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

The Constitution of the People’s Republic of India..

List of International Conventions

List of Cases

Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs Bangladesh

National Board of Revenue Vs Abu sayeed Khan and others.

BELA Vs. Bangladesh & Others, Writ Petition No. 6072 of 2010

BELA Vs. Bangladesh & Others, Writ Petition No. 2393 of 2010

BELA Vs. Bangladesh & Others, Writ Petition No. 2434 of 2014

BELA Vs. Bangladesh and others, Writ Petition No 4919/2010

BELA Vs. Bangladesh and others, Writ Petition No. 11594 of 2006

BELA Vs. Bangladesh and others, Writ Petition No. 6848/2009

BELA Vs. Banglaresh and Others, Writ Petition No. 8603 of 2005

Charles Sobraj Vs Supdt. Central Jail, New Delhi, 1978 (4) SCC 104.

Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque vs. Bangladesh & Others, Writ Petition No.891 of 1994

Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque Vs. Bangladesh,

Dr. Mohiudin Farooque Vs. Bangladesh and ekushey Television Ltd.

Hussainara Khatoon and others Vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81.

M.C Mehta Vs. Union of India Parmanand Katara V. Union of India

Mukhlesur Rehman Kazi Vs. Bangladesh,12 BLD (AD) 156 (1992).

Rakesh Kaushik Vs B L Vig, Superintendent, Central Jail, New Delhi and another, AIR 1981 SC 1767.

Roman Law in Deshpande, Vs, ‘Standing and Justiciability’, Journal of the Indial Law Institute,

Sekandar Ali Mondol v. Bangladesh and others (Writ Petition No.1576/1994) (Challenging Flood Action Plan-20)

Sunil Batra (II) Vs Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 488.

Books

Advocate Manzil Murshed, Judgment on public Interest litigation. 1^st edition January, 2017.

Edited Books

Journal Articles

Human Rights Magazine 2017

Newspaper Articles

www.thedailyinquilab.com

Web site.

www.academia.edu

www.askbd.org

www.belabangla.org/activities.htm

www.en.wikipedia.org

www.hrpb.org.bd

www.lawhelpbd.com

www.lawyerfarhadahmedbhuiyan.com

www.scholar.google.com

[1]Charles Sobraj v Supdt. Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi 1978 (4) SCC 104 and Sunil Batra (I) v Delhi Administration and others (1978) 4 SCC 494

[2]Prakash, Anand, Public Interest Litigation’, Annual Survey of Indian Law, Vol 20, 1984, 324-332 at 324

[3]Hussainara Khatoon and others v Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 as discussed in the section on ‘Prisons and State Institutions’ in chapter three.

Sunil Batra (II) v Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 488, also see Prem Shankar Shukla v Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526, Kishore Singh Ravinder D ew State of Rajastha

[5]Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh.

[6]Mukhlesur RehmanKazi v. Bangladesh

[7]41 DLR (AD), 165, (1989). 35 12 BLD (AD) 156 (1992). 36 46

[8]Dr. MohiudinFarooque v. Bangladesh and ekushey Television Ltd v. Chowdhury MahamoodHasan.

[9]PN Bhagwati, Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation, 23 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW, 566 (1985). 2 Janata Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary

[10]Durgapur Projects Ltd. V. Shankar

[11]Chapter 3, p.36 – 37, Chapter 5, p. 62 – 63.

[12]New Age, 7 August 2006. The High Court Bench was presided over by Justice Dastagir Husain.

[13]The Daily Star , 25 April, 2006

[14] www.lawhelpbd.com

[15] www.acamedia.edu

[16] www.scholar.google.com

[17] www.askbd.org

[18] www.belabangla.org/activities.htm

[19] www.hrpb.org.bd

[20] www.en.wikipedia.org

[21] ibid

June 1, 2021

By: Farhad Uddin Ahmed Bhuiyan

Enforcement of right to life through Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh and India : a comparative study

By: Farhad Uddin Ahmed Bhuiyan

Categories:

Tags:

Enforcement of right to life through Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh and India : a comparative study

Latest Posts

Untold facts behind my independent candidature: an explanation & clarification.

We are in competition to run after the Jahannam -an analytical overview.

Advocates’ Protection Act: A demand of the age.

Add Your Comment Cancel reply

Articles

Books

Uncategorized

Free Case Evaluation

Enforcement of right to life through Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh and India : a comparative study

By: Farhad Uddin Ahmed Bhuiyan

Share This Post

Categories:

Tags:

Enforcement of right to life through Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh and India : a comparative study

Latest Posts

Untold facts behind my independent candidature: an explanation & clarification.

We are in competition to run after the Jahannam -an analytical overview.

Advocates’ Protection Act: A demand of the age.

Add Your Comment Cancel reply

Free Case Evaluation