Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Environment Court Act (ECA), 2010 - Assignment
Environment Court Act (ECA), 2010 - Assignment
2010
Presented by
Md. Parvez Rahman
Department of Law
University of Dhaka
Content
Introduction of ECA
Features
Special Magistrate Court
Environment Court
Environment Appellate Court
Effectiveness of the Environmental Court in Bangladesh
Loopholes in environment court
Limitation of the Enforcement of the Environmental Law in
Bangladesh
Comment
Environment Court Act (ECA), 2010
❖ Environment Court
It is manifestly mentioned in section 4 of the Act that the present Environment
Court Act 2010 is aimed to establish one or more Environment Court/s in each
district with a Joint District Judge and the said judge shall in addition to his
ordinary function dispose of the cases that fall within the jurisdiction of an
Environment Court. No more Environment Court has been established till now
except the former three Courts and an Appellate Court. In Bangladesh, two
environmental courts were established in both Dhaka and Chittagong specially
structured to deal with environmental offenses only.
From the mandate of the Act, it is clear that, Environment Courts have been
established only for Department of Environment (DoE). Because primary
responsibility is to file a case and investigation thereof is vested to DoE.
Establishment and smooth functioning of Environment Courts depend on DoE.
Though the Act aimed to establish one or more Environment Court in 64 districts
but in reality, DoE has office not established in all districts.
Jurisdiction
The environment court have the power to try and dispose of any case respecting
to environmental crime referred by the Special Magistrate as envisaged in section
7. The special magistrates empowered under this act have to refer to the
Environment Court the cases which go beyond their plenary or pecuniary
jurisdiction.
In a case for compensation under the environmental law Environment Court Act
does not confer a person's right to seek remedy directly to the environment court.
At first, he has to seek remedy to the director general under the Environment
Conservation Act 1995 as per sec 17 of the said Act. Because section 7(4) of the
Environment court Act 2010 clearly states that no environment court shall receive
any claim for compensation except on the written report of an inspector or any
other person authorized by the director general.
And where a person presented a written of request to the said Inspector to accept
a claim for compensation and no action was taken within 60 (sixty) days though
such claim deserves to be taken into cognizance for the purpose of trial, then the
Court may directly receive the claim for compensation without such written
report, or may direct the said Inspector to investigate the claim.
Designing the environmental courts dependent on the written report of an
inspector of the Department of Environment to take cognizance of a cause gives
the executive preference over the judiciary. However, the court can directly
receive a case from private persons without such prior authorization if the court
is satisfied that a person presented a written request to the Inspector to accept the
case and no action was taken within 60 days after such request or the court, in
such circumstance, may direct the said Inspector to investigate the case.
Sections 10 and 14 of the Act stipulate that a case must be disposed within 180
days which can be extended to an additional 90 days by submitting a written
explanation. Multiple subsequent steps are envisioned regarding further delays as
well.
7. No provision for direct cases: Under the prevailing laws, the people or
environmental organizations cannot file cases directly with the
environmental court. They first have to lodge a complaint with the
department of environment. If the matter is not resolved, then the persons
can go to court. The absence of any provision to file a case directly with
the environment court is the main reason why there are so few cases. Under
the prevailing laws, if persons try to file a case directly with the
environment court, they are beset with bureaucratic tangles.
10. From the mandate of the Act, it is clear that, Environment Courts have
been established only for DoE. Because primary responsibility to file a suit/
case and investigation thereof is vested to DoE. Establishment and smooth
functioning of Environment Courts depend on DoE. Though the Act aimed
to establish one or more Environment Court in 64 districts but in reality,
DoE has office only in 21 districts with only one inspector in each office.
So, it is practically impossible to establish Environment Court without
office and manpower of DoE.
Comment
The adoption of the Environment Court Act, 2010 is undoubtedly a milestone in
the journey of environmental protection in Bangladesh. The court established
under the Act should have been designed in such a manner that can overcome the
adversarial drawbacks of civil and criminal courts. But the Act fails to ensure
speedy and effective environmental protection due to some latent defects,
entrusting it with the sole function of trying environmental cause, empowering it
with suo moto and judicial review power, extending its scope of application and
jurisdiction, and removing all other loopholes can make the court competent for
the coherent dispensation of environmental justice in Bangladesh.