Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & Others

Case Name: Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & Others

Court: Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division

Date: Judgment delivered on 1 July 1996

Citation: Writ Petition No. 92 of 1996

Introduction

The case of Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & Others marks a pivotal moment in  the evolution of constitutional law and environmental jurisprudence in Bangladesh. Filed  in 1996, this public interest litigation was initiated by Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque, the  Secretary-General of the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA), a  prominent organization known for its advocacy on environmental and public health issues.  The petitioner approached the Supreme Court of Bangladesh under Article 102 of the  Constitution, seeking judicial intervention against the government’s inaction in addressing  a severe public health threat.

The matter arose following the importation of a large consignment — 125 metric tons of  skimmed milk powder — which was found to contain hazardous levels of radioactivity,  as confirmed by the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission. Despite this alarming  revelation, efforts were allegedly underway to release the contaminated milk into the local  market, posing a grave risk to public health and safety.

Dr. Farooque, acting as a potential consumer and a concerned citizen, filed the writ  petition to halt the distribution of the radioactive milk and to compel the authorities to  uphold their constitutional obligation to protect the public. At the heart of the petition was  a demand for the enforcement of the right to life, as enshrined in Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that the right to life must encompass the right to live in a safe and  healthy environment, free from threats such as radiation exposure through food.

This case was groundbreaking for several reasons. It was one of the earliest instances in  Bangladesh where the court was asked to interpret the right to life in the context of  environmental hazards and food safety. It also significantly contributed to the  development of public interest litigation (PIL) in the country, empowering individuals  and organizations to approach the courts in matters of public concern, even if they are not  personally aggrieved.

Through this case, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh laid down an expansive interpretation  of the right to life, recognizing that it includes not just the right to survive but also the  right to live with dignity, safety, and well-being. The judgment further emphasized the  state’s constitutional duty to take proactive measures to protect public health and to  regulate the quality and safety of consumer goods entering the market.

Thus, the case serves as a milestone in the intersection of constitutional law,  environmental justice, and consumer protection, reflecting a broader global trend  toward recognizing environmental and health rights as fundamental human rights.

Facts of the Case

In 1996, a consignment of 125 metric tons of skimmed milk powder was imported into  Bangladesh from a foreign country. Upon arrival, the Bangladesh Atomic Energy  Commission (BAEC) conducted routine radiation testing on the consignment and  discovered that it contained dangerously high levels of radioactivity, far beyond what  was considered safe for human consumption. The radioactive contamination raised  immediate concerns about the severe health risks the milk powder posed to consumers,  particularly children and vulnerable populations.

Despite the alarming findings, there were reports that attempts were being made by certain  vested interests and unscrupulous actors to release the contaminated milk powder into  the local market, bypassing public safety protocols. This sparked public outcry and concern among civil society organizations, including the Bangladesh Environmental  Lawyers Association (BELA).

In response, Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque, acting as Secretary-General of BELA and as a  concerned citizen and potential consumer, filed a writ petition under Article 102 of  the Constitution of Bangladesh before the Supreme Court’s High Court Division. He  challenged the authorities’ failure to take appropriate and effective measures to prevent the  distribution of the contaminated milk, arguing that such inaction violated the  constitutional right to life of the people of Bangladesh.

The petition also highlighted the absence of a proper regulatory framework and the lack  of governmental accountability in ensuring the safety and quality of imported food  products. The petitioner emphasized that allowing radioactive milk into the food chain  would not only endanger public health but also erode public trust in state institutions  responsible for consumer protection.

Dr. Farooque’s petition was notable for framing the issue as a public interest litigation  (PIL), invoking the broader rights of citizens rather than any personal grievance. It focused  on the environmental and health hazards posed by the contaminated milk and argued  that the right to life, as guaranteed by the Constitution, must include the right to safe food,  good health, and a secure environment.

The case brought to light serious deficiencies in food safety oversight, import regulation,  and inter-agency coordination, and called upon the judiciary to step in where executive  action had failed to safeguard public welfare.

Legal Issues

Primary Issue:

• Whether the failure to prevent the distribution of radioactive milk violated the constitutional right to life under Article 32 of the Constitution of Bangladesh.

Sub-Issues:

• Whether public interest litigation is maintainable in such matters.
• Whether environmental protection is an essential component of the right to life. Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments (Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque / BELA):

Violation of the Right to Life (Article 32 of the Constitution):

The petitioner argued that the government’s failure to prevent the distribution of the  radioactive milk constituted a direct violation of the constitutional right to life,  which must be interpreted to include the right to live in a safe and healthy  environment. The consumption of radioactive food items posed a serious and  irreversible threat to public health, especially to children, thereby infringing on the  fundamental right to life and personal security.

Right to a Safe Environment and Public Health:

It was contended that the right to life encompasses the right to a pollution-free  environment, and this necessarily includes freedom from environmental hazards  in food and water. The presence of radiation in a basic consumable item like milk  highlighted an environmental and public health emergency that warranted immediate  judicial intervention.

Government’s Failure to Discharge Constitutional and Statutory Duties: The petitioner claimed that the relevant authorities, including the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Commerce, and import regulatory agencies, had failed in their constitutional and statutory obligations to protect the health of the people by not  taking action against the contaminated milk consignment.

Demand for Preventive and Remedial Measures:

The petitioner demanded that the court issue directions to the government to: o Seize and destroy the contaminated consignment.

Ensure proper radiation testing of all imported milk and dairy products in  the future.

Develop a regulatory mechanism for preventing similar incidents.

Inform the public about the health risks associated with radioactive food items.

Public Interest Litigation and Legal Standing:

The petitioner invoked the principle of public interest litigation (PIL), arguing that  as a potential consumer and a representative of public welfare, he had the locus  standi (legal standing) to bring this issue before the court, even though he was not  directly harmed. He contended that the court has a duty to entertain petitions where  fundamental rights of the public are at stake.

Respondents’ Arguments (Government of Bangladesh and Public Authorities):

Challenge to the Maintainability of the Petition:

The respondents raised questions about the maintainability of the writ petition,  arguing that the petitioner lacked locus standi as he was not personally affected or  injured by the milk powder consignment. They contended that the petition should be  dismissed for lack of personal grievance.

Denial of Negligence:

The government authorities denied that they had been negligent or inactive. They  claimed that precautionary measures were in place and that they had followed due  procedures regarding the import and testing of food items.

Administrative Discretion and Executive Authority:

It was argued that decisions about food safety, import restrictions, and public health  fall within the domain of the executive, and the judiciary should not interfere with  administrative discretion unless there is clear evidence of violation or illegality.

Assurance of Government Oversight:

The respondents assured the court that necessary steps were being taken to ensure that  no contaminated milk would be released for public consumption and that the relevant  agencies were addressing the issue according to law.

Court’s Analysis

In this landmark decision, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh undertook a profound and progressive interpretation of the constitutional right to life, setting a  precedent in environmental and public health jurisprudence.

Expansive Interpretation of the Right to Life (Article 32)

The Court emphatically stated that the right to life, as guaranteed under Article 32 of the  Constitution of Bangladesh, is not confined to mere survival or biological existence.  Rather, it includes the right to live with human dignity, which encompasses the right to  health, safety, and a clean and hazard-free environment.

The Court reasoned that any threat to the health of individuals—especially through  exposure to hazardous substances like radioactive milk—must be seen as a threat to the  very core of the right to life. Accordingly, allowing such contaminated food products to  enter public consumption would be unconstitutional.

Recognition of the Right to Environment as a Fundamental Right

For the first time in Bangladeshi legal history, the Court explicitly recognized the right  to a safe and healthy environment as an integral part of the right to life. It observed  that environmental degradation, toxic food, and unsafe consumer products all directly  impact the well-being of citizens and, therefore, fall within the scope of constitutional  protection.

This interpretation aligned the Bangladeshi constitutional framework with international  human rights standards, including those found in the Stockholm Declaration (1972) and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992).

Acceptance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

The Court addressed the objection raised by the government regarding the locus standi (legal standing) of the petitioner. The judges firmly rejected a narrow and technical view of legal standing, holding that any person or organization acting in good faith on behalf  of the public can bring a petition when a fundamental right is at risk.

This approach marked a significant development in public interest litigation in  Bangladesh and opened the doors for civil society and concerned citizens to seek judicial  remedies for environmental and public health violations.

Duty of the State to Protect Public Health

The Court underscored the constitutional and moral duty of the State to protect its  citizens from public health hazards. It emphasized that the government must exercise its  powers responsibly and ensure that no harmful products are allowed into the domestic  market.

Moreover, the Court criticized the lack of coordination and ineffective oversight  mechanisms among the regulatory agencies responsible for monitoring imported goods,  calling for immediate reforms and stronger accountability.

Judicial Activism in the Face of Executive Inaction

Recognizing the inaction and negligence of the concerned authorities, the Court exercised  its constitutional powers to intervene in the public interest. The judgment reflected the  growing judicial activism in Bangladesh, where the judiciary takes proactive measures to  uphold constitutional rights when the executive branch fails to act.

In summary, the Court’s analysis was grounded in a rights-based approach, focusing on  expanding the scope of constitutional protections to include environmental safety and  public health. It established the judiciary’s role not just as an interpreter of the law, but also  as a guardian of the Constitution and the people’s welfare.

Decision

The Supreme Court of Bangladesh, through its High Court Division, delivered a decisive  ruling in favor of the petitioner, Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque. The Court declared that the  release of the consignment of skimmed milk powder contaminated with radioactive  substances would be a direct violation of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under  Article 32 of the Constitution. It issued clear directions to the government and all relevant  authorities to immediately prohibit the distribution and sale of the contaminated milk, ensuring that it is neither consumed by the public nor allowed to enter the market under  any circumstances. Furthermore, the Court mandated the establishment of stringent testing  and monitoring mechanisms for all imported food products, especially dairy items, to  prevent future occurrences of such public health hazards. Recognizing the failure of the  authorities to discharge their constitutional obligations, the Court emphasized the State’s  responsibility to safeguard the health and well-being of its citizens and underscored the  judiciary’s role in enforcing these duties. This judgment reinforced the principle that the  right to life encompasses the right to a safe and healthy environment, thereby broadening  the scope of constitutional protections and setting an important precedent for future  environmental and consumer safety litigation in Bangladesh.

Significance

The decision in Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & Others represents a landmark  moment in Bangladeshi constitutional and environmental law. By broadening the  interpretation of the right to life to explicitly include the right to a safe and healthy  environment, the ruling set a transformative precedent for future public interest litigation  involving environmental protection and consumer safety. It established that the State has  an unequivocal constitutional duty to protect citizens from hazardous products and  environmental risks, thereby enhancing accountability among regulatory authorities.  Additionally, the case legitimized the use of public interest litigation as a powerful tool for  citizens and civil society organizations to hold the government accountable for failures in  safeguarding public health. The judgment not only strengthened judicial activism in  Bangladesh but also aligned the country’s constitutional jurisprudence with international  human rights norms, marking a significant step toward environmental justice and public  health protection.

Conclusion

The case of Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh & Others stands as a milestone in the  protection of fundamental rights in Bangladesh. By recognizing that the right to life extends beyond mere existence to include the right to a safe environment and protection from  hazardous products, the Supreme Court reinforced the essential link between  environmental health and human rights. The judgment not only prevented a serious public  health crisis but also set a vital precedent for the enforcement of constitutional duties in  safeguarding public welfare. Moreover, it empowered citizens and civil society to seek  judicial remedies through public interest litigation, thereby strengthening democratic  accountability. Ultimately, this case underscores the judiciary’s critical role as a guardian  of constitutional rights, especially where the executive falls short in fulfilling its obligations  to protect the health and safety of the people.

Reference(S):

• The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
• Writ Petition No. 92 of 1996, Supreme Court of Bangladesh
• Reports and publications by BELA (Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association) • Judicial activism in Bangladesh: Environmental protection cases