Aug 26, 2026
| Staff Correspondent | New Age BD
The High Court on Tuesday asked the government authorities to explain in four weeks why nine provisions of the Maheshkhali Integrated Development Authority Act, 2026 would not be declared unconstitutional.
It also asked why actions taken or proposed under the challenged provisions of the law should not be declared illegal for violation of the Constitution, the Environment Conservation Act, 1995, the Environment Conservation Rules, 1997, and other applicable environmental and land laws.
The bench of Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice SM Iftekhar Uddin Mahamud issued the rule after hearing a public interest litigation writ petition filed by the Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network, represented by its chief executive Hasan Mehedi, and Lawyers for Energy, Environment and Development Ltd, represented by its chairman Monera Haque Mone.
They challenged sections 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20 and 24 of the Act, all related to land use, development activities and forming a body for development in Maheshkhali, terming them unconstitutional under Article 26 of the Constitution. The article says that laws inconsistent with fundamental rights will be void.
Development of Maheshkhali and Matarbari as an industrial, energy, logistics and deep-sea port hub must not undermine environmental protection or the livelihoods of people dependent on fishing, salt cultivation, shrimp farming and other traditional occupations.
The respondents include the government, ministries of finance, planning, land, local government and power, the Department of Environment, BIDA, BEZA and MIDA.
According to the petition, section 7 provides for a 12-member governing body headed by the prime minister but does not include the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The petitioners said that this was particularly concerning because MIDA covers environmentally sensitive coastal, wetland and biodiversity-rich areas.
They also challenged sections 10 and 11, saying that the provisions allow broad powers over development activities and preparation of a master plan without mandatory public hearings or effective consultation with affected communities.
Sections 13, 14 and 15 were challenged over land-use planning, approval and restrictions on land.
The petitioners said that these provisions could affect landowners, homes, businesses and traditional livelihoods without adequate safeguards or appeal mechanisms.
They further argued that section 20 gives MIDA extensive control over land use through prior approvals or no-objection certificates, potentially weakening the constitutional role of local government institutions.
Section 24 of the act, which deals with enforcement powers, was also challenged for allegedly lacking sufficient safeguards against arbitrary or disproportionate action.
They relied on several articles of the constitution, arguing that environmental protection, property rights, livelihood, equality, freedom of movement and local self-government must be respected in implementing the MIDA Act.
They also referred to the environmental principles recognized in the Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh case and stressed the need to comply with environmental clearance requirements and the principles of sustainable development, precaution and public trust.
The petitioners also raised concerns over possible overlap between MIDA and the Chattogram Port Authority in relation to the Matarbari Deep Sea Port.
The petitioners argued that the challenged provisions gave MIDA excessive and largely unchecked powers over land use, development planning, environmental management and enforcement in Maheshkhali.
The law creates an unelected authority with wide powers while providing inadequate safeguards for public participation, judicial or independent review, and protection of local government institutions.
News Link: HC questions Maheskhali Integrated Dev Authority Act