Public interest litigations

Fifteen years have passed since the High Court had requested the Appellate Division to form a "monitoring cell" to supervise all its verdicts on public interest litigations (PILs). The monitoring cell till date is yet to be formed. By now the total number of unimplemented PILs in Bangladesh, ranging from protecting rivers from pollution, preventing road accidents, preservation of historical places, deterring piracy to each day occurrences like driving motorcycles on pavements have piled up to a massive number of 118, as the monitoring cell has not been created.
Public interest litigations as the name signifies protect the public interest and the verdicts on PILs delivered by the court should have aided our public for establishing their fundamental legal rights. Due to these 118 public interest litigations which have not materialised until now, two dangerous consequences have seemingly become ubiquitous in Bangladesh – first, a growing tendency to defy the law and second, offenders are perpetually violating public interests by polluting environment, causing unanticipated accidents, destroying heritage and many other things. 
But the public has a right to know why the government is delaying to form an independent secretariat for the judiciary despite the judiciary was separated from the executive more than three-and-a-half years ago. 
Now, the “monitoring cell” must be formed for implementing the PILs in Bangladesh immediately. Litigations regarding public interests must be taken seriously since it’s a crucial matter to provide access to justice to large masses of people who are denied basic human rights. 
We don’t have to look far for distinguishing some long-lasting and positive outcomes of implementing some landmark PILs. In India, the PIL case filed by environmentalist MC Mehta versus Union of India lashed out at civic authorities for permitting untreated sewage from Kanpur’s tanneries making its way into the Ganges. 
The Ganges today is at a far much better state than our Buriganga. It marked the green litigation in India. A similar environmental case resulted in stringent orders against Mathura refineries for polluting the ambient air around the Taj Mahal. 
But unfortunately, in Bangladesh the historic ambience and charm of most of old-Dhaka monuments are almost gone. Our legal authorities must draw lessons from these milestone PILs of India.  

 

 

 

Public interest litigations

Fifteen years have passed since the High Court had requested the Appellate Division to form a monitoring cell to supervise all its verdicts on public interest litigations (PILs). The monitoring cell till date is yet to be formed. By now the total number of unimplemented PILs in Bangladesh, ranging from protecting rivers from pollution, preventing road accidents, preservation of historical places, deterring piracy to each day occurrences like driving motorcycles on pavements have piled up to a massive numberof 118, as the monitoring cell has not been created. Public interest litigations as the name signifies protect the public interest and the verdicts on PILs delivered by the court should have aided our public for establishing their fundamental legal rights. Due to these 118 public interest litigations which have not materialised until now, two dangerous consequences have seemingly become ubiquitous in Bangladesh first, a growing tendency to defy the law and second, offenders are perpetually violating public interests by polluting environment, causing unanticipated accidents, destroying heritage and many other things. But the public has a right to know why the government is delaying to form an independent secretariat for the judiciary despite the judiciary was separated from the executive more than three-and-a-half years ago. Now, the monitoring cell must be formed for implementing the PILs in Bangladesh immediately. Litigations regarding public interests must be taken seriously since its a crucial matter to provide access to justice to large masses of people who are denied basic human rights. We dont have to look far for distinguishing some long-lasting and positive outcomes of implementing some landmark PILs. In India, the PIL case filed by environmentalist MC Mehta versus Union of India lashed out at civic authorities for permitting untreated sewage from Kanpurs tanneries making its way into theGanges. The Ganges today is at a far much better state than our Buriganga. It marked the green litigation in India. A similar environmental case resulted in stringent orders against Mathura refineries for polluting the ambient air around the Taj Mahal. But unfortunately, in Bangladesh the historic ambience and charm of most of old-Dhaka monuments are almost gone. Our legal authorities must draw lessons from these milestone PILs of India.