The Constitution of Bangladesh, under Article 18A, mandates the state to protect the environment, but since it falls under the fundamental principles of state policy, it is not judicially enforceable as a fundamental right. However, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has indirectly enforced environmental rights under the umbrella of ‘right to life’ and ‘public trust doctrine’ in Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh (17 BLD AD 1, 1997) and Human Rights Peace for Bangladesh v. Bangladesh (WP No. 13989 of 2016) respectively. Therefore, constitutionalisation of environmental rights is pivotal for direct enforcement.

Furthermore, the Environment Conservation Act 1995, the primary environmental law, lacks clear pollution control standards, detailed environmental clearance procedures, and comprehensive management guidelines. Similarly, the Environment Conservation Rules 1997 focus only on industrial pollution, failing to address climate change, integrating climate risks into Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), or ensuring strict enforcement of pollution standards. Besides, several sectoral laws attempt to address climate-related challenges but remain inadequate. To illustrate, the Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund Act 2010 creates a fund for climate adaptation and mitigation (Section 15) but does not establish mechanisms to ensure equitable resource distribution, accountability, or prioritization of vulnerable communities. The Disaster Management Act 2012 provides a framework for disaster response but lacks long-term preventive strategies, such as ecosystem protection and sustainable development. Additionally, it does not include marginalized groups in decision-making (Section 27) or outline clear accountability measures for negligence (Section 29). The Environment Court Act 2010 establishes Environment Courts (Section 4) and Special Magistrate Courts (Section 5) to handle environmental cases but creates procedural complexities that cause delays. It also allows for compounding offenses (Section 18), which, if exploited, can undermine the justice process. The requirement for a 25% deposit to appeal a decision (Section 19(5)) further limits access to justice for marginalized communities.

While Bangladesh has introduced some policies including National Adaptation Program of Action, Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan, and Mujib Climate Prosperity Plan, these play the role of soft law with no binding legal obligations.  The formation of laws and institutions consistent with these policies is required for proper implementation.

Beyond fixing legal gaps, learning from global practices is also important. The United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act 2008 and Denmark’s Climate Act 2020 provide stronger legal frameworks. The UK Act sets legally binding carbon reduction targets and establishes an independent Climate Change Committee to monitor progress. Section 1 of the UK Act commits to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and Section 5 requires the government to produce carbon budgets every five years. Similarly, Section 3 of Denmark’s Act mandates reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and establishes a Climate Council to oversee climate policies and progress. Section 1 of the Act commits to achieving a climate-neutral society by 2050, while Section 2 requires periodic assessments and reports to Parliament.

Therefore, it is submitted that Bangladesh must enact a dedicated climate law, establish an independent Climate Council, and ensure regular parliamentary oversight of climate policies to ensure climate justice. Recognizing the right to a healthy environment as a constitutional right and strengthening enforcement mechanisms will enhance legal accountability. Reforms should also focus on equitable resource distribution, prioritizing vulnerable populations, and integrating climate resilience into national policies. By implementing these measures, Bangladesh can effectively address climate challenges and uphold its commitment to environmental sustainability.