Criminalization Of Environmental Crimes In Hill Tracts
Legal & regulatory framework
The region of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (which covers the districts of Rangamati, Bandarban and Khagrachari) is ecologically sensitive, with hills, forests and tribal‐inhabited lands.
Major relevant statutes include the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act, 1995 (“BECA 1995”) which penalises “destruction of hills” and other environmental offences.
Also relevant: the Forest Act, 1927, the Chittagong Hill Tracts Transit Rules, 1973 regulating movement of timber, and judicially invoked constitutional rights (e.g., right to life under Article 32) to frame ecological protection as fundamental.
Criminalisation in this context means using these laws (and general criminal law) to prosecute or order enforcement against activities like illegal hill cutting, deforestation, quarrying/rock extraction, illegal brick‐kiln operations on hill slopes, illegal transit of timber, etc.
Detailed Case Laws
**Case 1: Writ Petition No. 7616 of 2011 (BELA & Others v. State – Hill cutting in Chittagong & other hill districts)
Facts:
A public interest writ petition was filed by the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) alleging widespread illegal and indiscriminate cutting of hills (including hillocks) in the Chittagong area and hill districts (e.g., Cox’s Bazar, Bandarban, Rangamati, Khagrachari). The petition noted ecological imbalance, landslides, risk to people living at the foot of hills, and unchecked housing/brickfield/land‐development activities on razed hills.
Legal issues:
Whether the state authorities had failed to enforce BECA 1995 and other laws when hills were cut.
Whether such hill cutting violated the constitutional right to life, habitat, safe environment.
Whether the respondents should be directed to stop unauthorized housing projects, brickfields, deforestation, and to maintain biodiversity in the hilly areas.
Judgment:
In March 2012, the High Court Division directed the public‐functionary respondents to take effective, inviolable and infallible steps to stop unauthorised hill cutting and razing; to stop unauthorised housing and brickfields on razed hills; to stop deforestation; and to ensure continuous biodiversity in the hill districts.
Significance:
This is a landmark environmental remedy case, where hill cutting in hill tracts was treated as a serious offence.
Although not a typical criminal prosecution of individuals, it triggered statutory enforcement obligations and paved the way for later case filings by the DOE (Department of Environment) under BECA.
It frames ecological damage in hill tracts as infringing fundamental rights of people.
**Case 2: Writ Petition No. 8794 of 2014 (BELA & Others v. State – Hill cutting in Jhilanjam Mouza, Cox’s Bazar)
Facts:
A petition alleging unlawful and indiscriminate cutting of hills in Jhilanjam Mouza, Cox’s Bazar district, attributed to ecological degradation and loss of natural heritage in that district.
Legal issues:
Whether the activities should be declared to be without lawful authority because of inaction of the respondents (various secretaries and departmental heads).
Whether the damaged hills should be declared “ecologically critical areas” and protection enforced.
Judgment:
In September 2014, the High Court issued a Rule Nisi asking respondents why they should not be directed to protect the hills: to declare them ecologically critical, stop the illegal cutting, and rehabilitate the affected people.
Significance:
Reinforces that hill cutting in hilly districts is not just a land‐use or development matter but an environmental crime warranting judicial oversight.
The concept of “ecologically critical area” is used to trigger enhanced protection.
Though again not necessarily a criminal conviction of persons, the court order functioned as enforcement driver for criminal/regulatory actions.
**Case 3: Recent DOE filing – Illegal hill cutting in Sylhet & Chittagong Hill Districts (2024‑25)
Facts:
In September 2024, the Department of Environment (DoE) filed four cases against 39 individuals for illegal hill cutting in Sitakunda upazila, Chittagong (multiple hills razed, large cubic feet of extraction).
In January 2025, the DoE filed a case under Section 15 of BECA 1995 against four accused in Sylhet for removing over 300,000 cubic feet of soil from hillocks to sell land as plots.
Legal issues:
Operation without environmental clearance / without permission.
Violations of Section 6(b) of BECA 1995 (environmental clearance requirement) and prosecution under Section 15 (penalties) in hill tracts/hill land context.
Outcome/Status:
These are active criminal/regulatory cases where the DoE is prosecuting individuals for hill cutting in hilly areas.
Significance:
These show that besides writ litigation, there are actual criminal/regulatory filings aimed at individual perpetrators in hill tracts.
The volume (39 accused, large scale of hill cutting) indicates environmental crime in hill regions is widespread and enforcement is increasing.
Provides a more traditional “prosecution” component, not just regulatory direction.
**Case 4: Illegal brick kilns in Hill Districts – High Court fine order (March 2025)
Facts:
The High Court fined 54 illegal brick kiln owners in the Chittagong Hill Tracts region (three hill districts) Tk 4 lakh each for operating without licences and destroying hills. The petition was brought by the Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh (HRPB).
Legal issues:
Operating brick kilns illegally on hill slopes/razed hills constitutes environmental crime.
Enforcement of court orders and ensuring that hillside ecosystems are not exploited for brick production.
Judgment/Order:
The High Court ordered each of the 54 kiln owners to deposit the fine within 30 days. The order followed the dismissal of counter‐petitions by kiln owners.
Significance:
This is a concrete enforcement action with individual accountability (owners fined).
Shows that in hill tracts the judiciary will impose monetary penalties for operating illicit industries affecting hills and environment.
It reflects movement from regulatory inaction to enforcement.
**Case 5: Contempt of Court ruling – Illegal Leasing of Forest Land in Chittagong Hill Tracts (June 2024)
Facts:
A contempt ruling was issued against a high‐level official (Additional Divisional Commissioner, Revenue, Chittagong) for reinstating a lease agreement on forest land for ship‐breaking yard purposes after rejection by court. The forest land was part of reserved/protected forest under Section 4 of Forest Act 1927 in Sitakunda upazila.
Legal issues:
Illegal leasing of reserved forest land in hill/forest zone constitutes environmental crime and violation of court orders.
Accountability of administrative officers in environmental law contexts in hilly districts.
Judgment:
The High Court ruled that the lease agreement was invalid; ignoring this was contempt of court; ordered the official to appear.
Significance:
This is a case of enforcement of forest law in hill districts, holding officials accountable for facilitating environmental crimes (illegal land leasing).
Highlights that forest/eco‐sensitive hill land exploitation is treated as serious and subject to judicial remedy and sanctions.
Key legal principles & trends emerging
Liability of individuals and corporations: Whereas earlier the focus was on directing state‐bodies, recent cases show individuals / companies (kiln owners, hill cutting syndicates) being directly held liable.
Environment + human rights linkage: Courts in hill tracts treat degradation (hill cutting, deforestation) as violation of fundamental rights (right to safe environment, life).
Enforcement of statutory provisions: Use of BECA 1995 (Section 6(b), Section 15) for hill cutting; Forest Act rules for timber/forest land; brick kiln regulations.
Conviction and sentencing still weak but improving: Some articles indicate that many cases result only in fines or delays; however, enforcement is now gaining momentum in hill tracts.
Judicial oversight required: Many cases are writ petitions ordering monitoring, protection measures, EIA requirement before hill cutting in hill tracts.
Ecological and social dimensions: Hill tracts involve indigenous peoples and fragile ecosystems; environmental crimes often tie in with land‑grab, deforestation, rock extraction – so criminalisation must consider these contexts.
Conclusion
In the hill tracts of Bangladesh, environmental crimes such as illegal hill cutting, mining/rock extraction, illegal brick kilns, deforestation and improper leasing of forest/hill land are being progressively criminalised. The series of judgments and prosecutions show a trajectory from PILs to actual prosecutions and fines. The hill tracts context adds layers of ecological fragility, indigenous rights, and terrain challenges.
RELATED Blog
comments