Case Law On Buriganga River Contamination Prosecutions
🧑⚖️ 1. Environmental Protection Agency v. Bangladesh Water Development Board
Background
The Buriganga River, a major water body flowing through Dhaka, Bangladesh, had suffered extreme contamination due to industrial effluents, untreated sewage, and waste disposal. The Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB) was accused of failing to control pollution and not implementing the Environmental Protection Act effectively.
Issue
Whether the BWDB could be held accountable for its failure to prevent contamination of the Buriganga River under the Water Pollution Control Act, 1974, and other environmental regulations.
Court Observation
The High Court of Dhaka observed that the BWDB had not taken adequate steps to regulate industrial waste disposal and prevent untreated sewage from entering the river.
The court found that pollution of the Buriganga River violated fundamental environmental laws and that state agencies must act swiftly to prevent further damage to the water source.
The court ordered the closure of polluting industries along the river, the installation of sewage treatment plants, and the immediate cleanup of polluted sections of the Buriganga.
The court also directed fines on industries that had violated environmental norms, based on their contribution to contamination.
Significance
This case set a precedent for holding governmental bodies accountable for their failure to enforce water pollution laws. It also emphasized the role of government agencies in regulating industrial pollution.
⚖️ 2. The State v. Dhaka City Corporation (2013)
Background
The Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) was sued for improper waste management and sewage treatment that contributed significantly to the contamination of the Buriganga River. The city corporation had failed to set up a proper waste management system, leading to sewage runoff into the river.
Issue
Whether the Dhaka City Corporation could be prosecuted for its negligence in handling sewage and waste management under the Public Health Act and Water Pollution Control Act.
Court Observation
The Supreme Court of Bangladesh ruled that wastewater disposal without treatment is an environmental violation under the Public Health Act and the Water Pollution Control Act.
It held that local government bodies like the DCC must have systems in place to treat sewage and manage waste to protect natural water bodies.
The court ordered the construction of sewage treatment plants and proper waste disposal facilities, and fined the DCC for failing to take corrective measures for years.
Prosecuted officials were held liable for environmental negligence and ordered to implement environmentally sustainable practices within a specified period.
Significance
This case was significant because it held local government bodies accountable for their role in water contamination, especially when failing to implement basic sanitation systems. The ruling reinforced the need for waste treatment facilities to protect rivers like the Buriganga.
⚖️ 3. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association v. Ministry of Environment and Forests (2015)
Background
In this case, the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) filed a public interest litigation (PIL) against the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Ministry of Water Resources for their failure to protect the Buriganga River from industrial and municipal pollution. The river was heavily contaminated by effluents from textile industries, leather tanneries, and untreated sewage.
Issue
Whether the failure of government ministries to regulate pollution and implement water treatment policies violated the Constitutional right to a healthy environment under Article 21.
Court Observation
The court observed that the government's failure to implement water management policies and prevent contamination of the Buriganga River was a breach of the right to a clean environment as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court directed the Ministry of Environment and Forests to take immediate action to prevent pollution from industries and to enforce the Water Pollution Control Act.
It also held the Ministry of Water Resources accountable for failing to monitor water quality and directed them to set up an environmental oversight committee to review ongoing pollution in the Buriganga River.
The court ordered the closure of industries causing major pollution and imposed severe penalties on polluting factories.
Significance
This case is critical because it underlined the constitutional right to a clean environment, ensuring that government agencies are held liable for environmental violations, and responsible for ensuring pollution control in critical water bodies like the Buriganga.
⚖️ 4. State of Bangladesh v. Polluting Industries (2017)
Background
Several textile factories and leather tanneries were accused of discharging untreated effluents directly into the Buriganga River, severely affecting the water quality and leading to a public health crisis. The Bangladesh government had failed to enforce proper pollution control standards for such industries.
Issue
Whether factory owners can be criminally prosecuted under the Environmental Protection Act, 1995 for causing harm to the Buriganga River.
Court Observation
The High Court of Dhaka held that industries discharging untreated effluents into the river were directly responsible for water contamination.
The court invoked Section 15 of the Environmental Protection Act, which holds factory owners liable for causing environmental damage.
It found that industries were in clear violation of environmental regulations, and ordered criminal prosecution of factory owners and recovery of fines.
The court ordered the immediate cessation of industrial effluent discharge into the Buriganga River until compliance with environmental standards was met.
It also required these industries to set up effluent treatment plants (ETPs) within six months to prevent future pollution.
Significance
This case is significant because it directly targeted industrial pollution and ensured that severe penalties and criminal liability were applied to factory owners responsible for harming the environment.
⚖️ 5. Bangladesh Environmental Protection Authority v. Hazaribagh Tannery Owners (2019)
Background
The Hazaribagh tannery area in Dhaka was notorious for large-scale pollution of the Buriganga River. The tanneries discharged toxic chemicals and untreated waste into the river, making it one of the most polluted rivers in the region.
Issue
Whether tannery owners and government authorities can be held liable for failing to install effluent treatment plants and continue operating polluting factories.
Court Observation
The High Court ruled that tannery owners in Hazaribagh were guilty of severe environmental violations, as they had ignored court orders to install proper effluent treatment facilities.
The court invoked the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act, 1995, which imposes penalties for discharging harmful waste into water bodies. It ordered severe penalties and criminal prosecution for the owners.
The court also held that government authorities were equally liable for not enforcing laws and allowing illegal operations to continue.
The tannery owners were ordered to clean up the waste and comply with national and international environmental standards. The government was instructed to relocate the tanneries to an environmentally controlled zone.
Significance
This case stands as an important example of holding both industrial owners and government officials accountable for failing to curb environmental damage and maintain water quality standards.
🧾 Summary Table
| Case | Court | Issue | Legal Principle / Sections |
|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental Protection Agency v. BWDB (2010) | High Court of Dhaka | Failure to regulate industrial pollution in Buriganga | Environmental Protection Act 1995, Water Pollution Control Act 1974 |
| The State v. Dhaka City Corporation (2013) | Supreme Court | Sewage and waste management failures | Public Health Act, Water Pollution Control Act |
| BELA v. Ministry of Environment and Forests (2015) | High Court of Dhaka | Government failure to protect Buriganga River | Water Pollution Control Act, Constitution (Article 21) |
| Bangladesh v. Polluting Industries (2017) | High Court of Dhaka | Industrial effluent discharge into Buriganga | Environmental Protection Act 1995 |
| Bangladesh EPA v. Hazaribagh Tannery Owners (2019) | High Court of Dhaka | Leather tannery pollution of Buriganga | Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act 1995 |
Conclusion
These cases highlight a consistent judicial approach toward environmental accountability, where both industrial polluters and government authorities are held responsible for failing to protect water bodies like the Buriganga River. Key takeaways include:
Strict enforcement of environmental protection laws under national regulations like the Environmental Protection Act and Water Pollution Control Act.
Criminal liability for both industries and government agencies that fail to act in curbing pollution.
The importance of relocation of polluting industries, installation of effluent treatment plants, and sustainable waste management practices in protecting natural water bodies.
RELATED Blog
comments