The Appellate Division held that a person or organization taking up a public cause on behalf of many people can be a “person aggrieved” under Article 102, even if not personally affected. The decision made public interest litigation a permanent part of Bangladeshi law.
Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh (1997): The FAP-20 Case and the Meaning of “Person Aggrieved”
30th Sep 2026, author: admin
| CASE AT A GLANCE | |
|---|---|
| Citation | (1997) 49 DLR (AD) 1; 17 BLD (AD) 1 |
| Court | Appellate Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh |
| Bench | ATM Afzal CJ, Mustafa Kamal, Latifur Rahman, Md Abdur Rouf and BB Roy Choudhury JJ |
| Date | 25 July 1996 |
| Outcome | Appeal allowed unanimously; BELA held to have standing; writ sent back to the High Court Division. |
ARTICLE TEXT
Who may go to the High Court Division to challenge a government decision? Before 1996, the answer in Bangladesh was usually: only someone whose own rights or interests were directly affected. Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh changed that. By holding that a public-spirited citizen or organisation can challenge actions that harm the public at large, the Appellate Division opened the courts to public interest litigation and gave Bangladesh some of the most generous standing rules in South Asia.
The Background
In the early 1990s, following the catastrophic floods of 1987 and 1988, the government and international donors developed the Flood Action Plan. One component, FAP-20, was a Compartmentalisation Pilot Project in Tangail district. It would divide the floodplain into compartments controlled by embankments and sluice gates.
The Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA), through its Secretary General Dr Mohiuddin Farooque, filed Writ Petition No. 998 of 1994. BELA argued that the project threatened the environment, livelihoods and property of about a million people, and that it had gone ahead without a proper environmental impact assessment or meaningful consultation with those affected. On 18 August 1994 the High Court Division rejected the petition summarily. It held that BELA was not a “person aggrieved” under Article 102 of the Constitution, since the association itself suffered no personal injury.
The Issue
Article 102 allows the High Court Division to issue writs on the application of “any person aggrieved”. The only question in the appeal was what those words mean. Do they cover only those personally harmed, or can they extend to people and organisations acting for the public?
The Decision
On 25 July 1996, a five-judge bench allowed the appeal unanimously, holding that BELA had standing. The writ petition was sent back to the High Court Division to be heard on its merits.
The leading judgment of Mustafa Kamal J explained that the expression “person aggrieved” must be read in the light of the Constitution as a whole. The Constitution begins by declaring that all powers belong to the people (Article 7). It commits the state to fundamental principles of social justice (Article 8) and to democracy with effective participation by the people (Article 11). A narrow, private-law reading of standing would sit uncomfortably with those commitments. So when a citizen, or an association of citizens, takes up a public cause involving a public wrong or public injury affecting an indeterminate number of people, that person is a person aggrieved, even without any personal injury.
ATM Afzal CJ agreed, stating the test as one of sufficient interest. Anyone with a sufficient interest in the matter may apply, but not a mere busybody or officious intervener acting out of spite, publicity-seeking or private gain.
The judges also accepted that the right to life under Articles 31 and 32 includes the protection of the environment on which life depends. That interpretation became the basis of Bangladesh’s environmental jurisprudence.
Why It Matters
The FAP-20 case is the foundation of public interest litigation (PIL) in Bangladesh. It built on the discretionary approach to standing first seen in Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman v Bangladesh (1974) and turned it into a clear, principled rule. Since 1996, PIL has been used to challenge river pollution, the demolition of slums without notice, illegal detention, ship-breaking hazards, the treatment of women and children, and much more. Many of the other cases in this series, including BLAST v Bangladesh on arrest and remand and BNWLA v Bangladesh on sexual harassment, were brought by organisations that could only reach the court because of this judgment.
The case also made Dr Mohiuddin Farooque, who died in 1997, one of the founding figures of environmental law in Bangladesh. BELA, the organisation he led, remains one of the country’s most active public interest litigators.
A Note of Caution
Wide standing brings responsibilities. Courts have since warned against petitions filed for publicity or political advantage, and they continue to apply the “officious intervener” limit. The value of the FAP-20 test lies in its balance: the court’s door is open to those who speak for the voiceless, but not to those who simply want to be heard.
Sources
- ELAW, Farooque v Government of Bangladesh (Flood Action Plan case): https://elaw.org/resource/farooque-vs-government-of-bangladesh-wp-998-of-1994-ca-24-of-1995-1996-07-25-flood-action-plan-case
- BD Law Digest, Locus standi and public interest litigation in Bangladesh: https://bdlawdigest.org/locus-standi-public-interest-litigation-bangladesh.html
- 49 DLR (AD) 1, copy of judgment: https://www.studocu.com/row/document/eastern-university/consumer-behavior/49-dlr-ad-1-ashkdvabdlanukid/124800871
Recent Landmark Cases - Bangladesh
BLAST v Bangladesh (Shukur Ali Case, 2015): Why the Mandatory Death Penalty Was Struck Down
In 2015 the Appellate Division held that a law requiring courts to impose the death sentence, with no alternative, is unconstitutional. The case began with a boy of fourteen sentenced to death under a law that gave judges no choice. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation BLAST v Bangladesh (2015) 68 DLR (AD) 1; 1 SCOB [...]
The Sixteenth Amendment Case (2017): Who Should Remove a Supreme Court Judge?
In 2017 the Appellate Division unanimously struck down the Sixteenth Amendment, which had given Parliament the power to remove Supreme Court judges, and restored the Supreme Judicial Council. The judgment was upheld on review in October 2024. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation Government of Bangladesh v Advocate Asaduzzaman Siddiqui (2019) 71 DLR (AD) 52 Court [...]
The Thirteenth Amendment Case: How the Caretaker Government Was Abolished, and Then Restored
In 2011 the Appellate Division declared the caretaker government system unconstitutional by 4:3. Fourteen years later, in November 2025, the same court unanimously set that judgment aside on review, restoring the system for future elections. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation Abdul Mannan Khan v Bangladesh (2012) 64 DLR (AD) 169 Court Appellate Division, Supreme Court [...]
The Fifth Amendment Case (2010): Martial Law, the Moon Cinema and the Supremacy of the Constitution
What began as a dispute over a cinema hall in Dhaka ended with the Supreme Court declaring the Fifth Amendment and the martial law regimes of 1975–1979 unconstitutional. The judgment reshaped the Constitution and led directly to the Fifteenth Amendment. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation Khondker Delwar Hossain v Bangladesh Italian Marble Works Ltd (2010) [...]
BNWLA v Bangladesh (2009): The High Court’s Guidelines on Sexual Harassment at Work and in Education
With no law on sexual harassment in force, the High Court Division issued binding guidelines in 2009 for every workplace and educational institution in Bangladesh, including mandatory complaint committees. For sixteen years, those guidelines did the work of a statute. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association v Government of Bangladesh (2009) [...]
BLAST v Bangladesh: Curbing Arrest Without Warrant and Police Remand under Sections 54 and 167 CrPC
After a student died in police custody in 1998, BLAST challenged the police powers of arrest without warrant and remand. The High Court Division (2003) and Appellate Division (2016) issued binding guidelines that have shaped criminal procedure ever since. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation HCD: (2003) 55 DLR (HCD) 363. AD: Bangladesh v BLAST (2016) [...]
Secretary, Ministry of Finance v Masdar Hossain (1999): The Blueprint for Separating the Judiciary
In Masdar Hossain, the Appellate Division held that the judicial service is separate from the civil administration and issued twelve directions to free the lower judiciary from executive control. The separation finally took effect on 1 November 2007. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation (2000) 52 DLR (AD) 82 Court Appellate Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh [...]
Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v Bangladesh (1989): The Eighth Amendment Case and the Basic Structure Doctrine
In 1989 the Appellate Division struck down a constitutional amendment for the first time, holding that Parliament cannot use its amending power to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation 1989 BLD (Spl) 1; (1989) 41 DLR (AD) 165 Court Appellate Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh Bench Badrul Haider Chowdhury, [...]
Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman v Bangladesh (1974): The Berubari Case and the Birth of Public Interest Standing
Only two years after the Constitution came into force, an advocate challenged the 1974 Land Boundary Agreement with India. He lost on timing, but the Appellate Division's approach to standing opened the door to public interest litigation in Bangladesh. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation (1974) 26 DLR (SC) 44 Court Appellate Division, Supreme Court of [...]
The Midnight Knock, Regulated: BLAST v Bangladesh and the Section 54 Guidelines
The case at a glance BLAST v Bangladesh (2003) 55 DLR (HCD) 363, affirmed with modified directives by the Appellate Division in Bangladesh v BLAST (2016). Holding: the powers of arrest without warrant under section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and of remand under section 167 must be exercised subject to constitutional [...]
Who May Knock on the Court’s Door? Dr Mohiuddin Farooque and the Birth of PIL in Bangladesh
The case at a glance Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh (1997) 49 DLR (AD) 1 (Appellate Division). Also known as the FAP-20 case. Holding: "any person aggrieved" in Article 102 of the Constitution includes a person or organisation espousing a genuine public cause — public interest litigation is constitutionally at home in Bangladesh. The story [...]
Twelve Directives That Freed the Judiciary: The Masdar Hossain Case (2000)
The case at a glance Secretary, Ministry of Finance v Md. Masdar Hossain (2000) 52 DLR (AD) 82 (Appellate Division). Holding: the judicial service is a service of the Republic distinct from the executive civil service; twelve directives issued to give effect to the constitutional separation of the judiciary. The story Md. Masdar Hossain, a [...]
The Case That Tamed Parliament: Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v Bangladesh (1989)
The case at a glance Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v Bangladesh, 1989 BLD (Spl) 1; 41 DLR (AD) 165 (Appellate Division). Also known as the Eighth Amendment case. Holding: Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 142 does not extend to destroying its basic structure. The story The Constitution (Eighth Amendment) Act 1988 amended Article [...]