Petitioners say the law could reshape Moheshkhali’s land, livelihoods and environmental oversight without adequate public consultation, procedural safeguards or representation from the environment ministry.
The High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has issued a Rule Nisi questioning the constitutional validity of several key provisions of the Moheshkhali Integrated Development Authority (MIDA) Act, 2026, in a case that raises concerns over environmental protection, land and livelihood rights and the concentration of powers over local governance and development planning.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice S.M. Iftekhar Uddin Mahmud issued the rule, asking the respondents to explain why Sections 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20 and 24 of the MIDA Act should not be declared illegal, unconstitutional and without lawful authority.
The writ petition was filed by Lawyers for Energy, Environment and Development (LEED) and the Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN), challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions. Advocate Abdullah Al Noman filed the petition, while Advocate Monira Haque Moni represented the petitioners during the hearing.
According to the petition, the challenged provisions concentrate authority over the development master plan, land use planning, environmental management and regulatory functions in Moheshkhali under a specialised executive authority.
The petitioners argue that such powers raise questions about compatibility with Articles 18A, 27, 31, 32, 36, 40, 42, 59 and 60 of Bangladesh’s Constitution, which protect environmental conservation, equality before the law, legal protection, life and personal liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of profession or occupation, property rights and local government.
The petition also states that Moheshkhali, a coastal island in Cox’s Bazar district known for its wetlands and biodiversity, is an ecologically sensitive area. It argues that the 12-member governing board of MIDA does not include a representative from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, raising concerns about the state’s constitutional obligation under Article 18A to protect the environment, natural resources and biodiversity.
The petitioners further argue that all activities undertaken by MIDA must remain subject to the Constitution, the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act, 1995, the Environment Conservation Rules, 1997 and other applicable environmental and land laws.
They contend that the MIDA Act cannot be used to bypass the legal requirement for industries or projects to obtain environmental clearance from the Department of Environment where such approval is mandatory.
The petition also argues that the MIDA framework does not provide an effective mechanism for meaningful participation by local residents and affected communities.
It says the MIDA Ordinance, 2025, which preceded the enactment of the MIDA Act, 2026, was introduced without adequate public hearings or meaningful consultation with affected communities.
According to the petitioners, excluding affected people from decisions with potentially far-reaching consequences for land, livelihoods, the environment and human settlements is inconsistent with the democratic and participatory principles contained in Article 11 of the Constitution.
The petition specifically challenges Sections 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 of the Act, arguing that they grant MIDA broad powers over development planning, land use, land restrictions and related regulations without requiring mandatory public consultation, disclosure of information, public hearings, opportunities to raise objections or sufficient procedural safeguards for affected landowners.
As a result, executive decisions could significantly affect land ownership, property, settlements, livelihoods and economic activities without adequate due process, the petition says.
The petitioners also note that Moheshkhali’s economy and social life depend heavily on salt cultivation, fishing, shrimp farming and other traditional occupations.
They argue that converting salt fields and other livelihood-dependent land into industrial or development zones could deprive communities of longstanding sources of income. Without adequate safeguards, rehabilitation and compensation, such actions raise serious constitutional questions concerning the freedom of profession or occupation protected under Article 40, the petition states.
Referring to Articles 31 and 32, the petition further argues that the exercise of MIDA’s powers could result in the displacement of local communities, disruption of traditional occupations, interference with settlements and loss of access to land and natural resources.
According to the petitioners, such consequences could directly affect the constitutional rights to life, personal liberty and protection of the law.
The petitioners say they do not oppose development, industrialisation, infrastructure expansion or economic transformation in Moheshkhali. However, they argue that all development must take place within the framework of the Constitution, fundamental rights, democratic governance, environmental principles and the rule of law.
They contend that no development authority should be given powers that enable it to undermine constitutional rights, interfere arbitrarily with people’s rights and property or weaken the constitutionally recognised role of elected local government institutions.
According to the petition, the challenged provisions raise broader constitutional concerns by concentrating authority over development planning, land use, environmental management, economic regulation and enforcement in a single executive authority without adequate mechanisms for democratic accountability, meaningful public participation and effective procedural safeguards.
