In the largest delta in the world, Bangladesh, the environmental safeguarding mechanism consists of nearly 200 laws. Yet, the country has faced severe environmental degradation over the last few decades, including losing a significant part of its forest area, rivers and biodiversity. Though there have been constant developments in the law-making to protect the environment through the latest enacted laws, many other laws can be traced back to the British colonial period, reflecting the long effort for environmental protection in this region. However, Bangladesh ranked 7^th in the Global Climate Risk Index 2024 and 175^th in the Environmental Performance Index 2024 for climate risk vulnerability. While natural calamities cause adverse effects on the climate, one of the core reasons behind the concerning rankings is systematically enacting laws with loopholes in the name of ‘national interest,’ leading to ecocide in Bangladesh.

Article 18A of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh states that the environment of the country should be protected and preserved by the State. Though the insertion of this provision in 2011 through the Fifteenth Amendment seems to be the government’s commitment towards environmental safeguard, it falls under the Part II of the Constitution—Fundamental Principle of State Policy, which is a mere directive guideline and judicially unenforceable according to Article 8(2) of the Constitution. Hence, despite containing a provision to protect the environment in the supreme law of the land, it proves to be a gun without bullets.

Having found the constitutional doors closed, an alternative approach to safeguarding the environment can be explored through the core environmental legislation, the Environment Conservation Act 1995 (ECA). Section 6B of the Act forbids the cutting or razing of mountains and hills, while Section 6E imposes restrictions on filling or reclassifying reservoirs. However, both provisions contain an exception of ‘national interest,’ a vague term not defined in this Act or elsewhere. Even the General Clauses Act 1882, the dedicated Act containing the definition of the legal terms used in Bangladesh, does not explain what ‘national interest’ is and to what extent and in which circumstance it can be applied. Therefore, the ECA also seems to be ineffective, like the Constitution, as loopholes are intentionally placed in the law, legalising ecocide in a ‘systemic way.’

In spite of national and international concerns, the environment has been continuously exploited officially. For instance, the High Court Division declined to intervene in the Rampal Power Plant Project despite widespread domestic and international opposition concerning the potential environmental impact on the Sundarbans and the displacement of over 3,500 land-owning families and others who rely on the forest for their livelihood. In addition, open-pit coal mining in Phulbaria and hundreds of rivers being dried up are some of the examples of State-made ecocide in Bangladesh. Consequently, Bangladesh, a country that used to be home to 2,242 species out of 1,31,859 species worldwide (1.7%), has lost its biodiversity significantly in recent decades.

Bangladesh was a riverine country with over a thousand rivers, but now, only 230 rivers have perennial flows. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh made a revolutionary decision in the Turag River case in 2020 by giving legal identity to the rivers, and appointing the National River Protection Commission as the guardian. Interestingly, the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding precedents according to Article 111 of the Constitution, and any law inconsistent with the Constitution is void according to Article 7(2). The term ‘national interest’ which has been used to allow earth-filling of rivers, though not defined, is contained under an ordinary law as opposed to the Constitution. Thus, although the Turag River case does not explicitly address this ‘national interest’ exception contained in the ECA, the bindingness of the decision according to the supremacy of the Constitution technically makes the exception void. The Constitution restricts such activities under any circumstances without exception, to protect the biodiversity, ecological balance and environment of Bangladesh. Moreover, the leading Mohiuddin Farooque Case also interpreted the right to an unpolluted environment as a part of the right to life guaranteed under Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution. Thus, exploiting rivers as well as the illegal exploitation of any other natural resources, including forests and hills, leading to ecocide, is technically a direct violation of the Constitution.

Unfortunately, there has not been much scholarly discussion pointing out the loopholes. There are indeed challenges with implications, but the law must be there for accountability in the first place. Especially in the context of potential constitutional reform following the July Revolution, this is not just a matter of concern but an urgent crisis that demands attention.