Prosecution Of Environmental Crimes Under Environmental Conservation Act
1. Overview: Environmental Conservation Act (ECA), 1995
The Environmental Conservation Act, 1995 is the principal legislation in Bangladesh to prevent environmental degradation and prosecute environmental crimes. It provides legal mechanisms to control pollution, regulate hazardous substances, and penalize offenders.
Key Provisions for Prosecution
Section 5: Declaration of Ecologically Critical Areas (ECA) – activities in such areas are restricted.
Section 9: Prohibits activities that cause environmental pollution or degradation.
Section 23: Powers of the Director General of the Department of Environment (DoE) to investigate violations.
Section 24: Penalties for contravention – fines and imprisonment.
Section 25: Special powers for enforcement, including closure of polluting factories.
Section 26: Criminal liability for violations of rules under the Act.
Important point: The ECA is both preventive and punitive, allowing prosecution of individuals, companies, or government bodies violating environmental norms.
2. Challenges in Enforcement and Prosecution
Despite the legal framework, prosecution faces hurdles:
Limited capacity of DoE: Investigation resources and technical expertise are insufficient.
Judicial delays: Environmental cases often take years to resolve.
Corporate resistance: Industries often challenge DoE directives in courts.
Lack of awareness: Public and local authorities are sometimes unaware of ECA provisions.
3. Case Laws on Environmental Crimes in Bangladesh
Case 1: Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Ministry of Environment (2002)
Facts:
BELA filed a writ petition against several brick kilns operating without proper pollution control in the Gazipur district. The kilns were causing air pollution and health hazards to nearby residents.
Court’s Decision:
The High Court directed the DoE to close illegal kilns and impose fines under Section 24 of the ECA.
The court emphasized the precautionary principle and instructed continuous monitoring of industrial operations.
Significance:
First major judicial acknowledgment of prosecution powers under ECA.
Reinforced DoE authority to enforce criminal and administrative penalties.
Case 2: BLAST v. Dhaka City Corporation (Writ Petition No. 6651/2009)
Facts:
BLAST challenged illegal dumping of industrial effluents into rivers in Dhaka. The pollution caused water contamination affecting drinking water and aquatic life.
Court’s Decision:
The High Court instructed Dhaka City Corporation and the DoE to file criminal cases against the companies under Section 24 and 26 of the ECA.
Ordered regular monitoring and closure of non-compliant factories.
Significance:
Demonstrated the prosecutorial powers of DoE backed by judicial oversight.
Established that environmental damage affecting public health qualifies for criminal prosecution.
Case 3: BELA v. Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB) (2011)
Facts:
Coal-fired power plants in Chittagong were allegedly releasing hazardous emissions without proper filtration, violating environmental standards.
Court’s Decision:
The High Court directed BPDB to install emission control equipment and comply with DoE standards.
Ordered DoE to initiate prosecution if non-compliance continued, under Sections 24 and 26.
Significance:
Highlighted that state-run enterprises are also subject to prosecution.
Reinforced preventive and punitive functions of ECA.
Case 4: BELA v. Khulna City Corporation and Industries (2015)
Facts:
Industries near Khulna were discharging untreated effluents into the Rupsha river, threatening fisheries and livelihoods of local communities.
Court’s Decision:
High Court issued closure orders and fines under Section 24.
Directives included mandatory remediation and criminal prosecution for responsible industrialists under Section 26.
Significance:
Emphasized that prosecution can be accompanied by restoration measures.
Showed judicial willingness to hold private actors criminally liable for environmental harm.
Case 5: BLAST v. Teesta Fertilizer Ltd. (2018)
Facts:
Teesta Fertilizer was accused of illegal disposal of chemical waste causing soil and water pollution in Rangpur. Local residents filed complaints.
Court’s Decision:
High Court ordered DoE to register formal criminal cases under the ECA against the company.
Directed continuous monitoring and compensation for affected communities.
Significance:
Reinforced the criminal accountability of corporations under ECA.
Judicial support ensured enforcement of preventive, punitive, and remedial measures.
4. Key Lessons and Analysis
| Aspect | Observation from Cases |
|---|---|
| Scope of Prosecution | Applies to individuals, private companies, and state enterprises (BELA v. BPDB, Teesta Fertilizer). |
| Preventive Measures | Courts often direct installation of pollution-control equipment (BPDB case). |
| Punitive Measures | Fines, closure orders, and criminal prosecution under Section 24 & 26 (Khulna and Gazipur cases). |
| Judicial Oversight | Courts actively monitor DoE enforcement, showing judicial activism (BLAST cases). |
| Remedial Action | Some cases include compensation and restoration (Khulna and Teesta cases). |
5. Conclusion
The Environmental Conservation Act, 1995, provides a strong legal basis to prosecute environmental crimes in Bangladesh. The judiciary has actively intervened in numerous cases to ensure criminal accountability, closure of polluting industries, and environmental remediation.
However, challenges remain:
Slow enforcement by DoE
Non-compliance by industries
Inadequate technical capacity and monitoring
The case law shows a growing trend of judicial activism to ensure environmental protection and criminal prosecution, but consistent enforcement is still a major challenge.
RELATED Blog
0 comments