¹ Tey, Tsun Hang, “Public interest Litigation in Malaysia: Executive Control and Careful Negotiation of the Frontiers of Judicial Review” in Yap, Po Jen & Lau, Holning, eds., Public interest Litigation in Asia (London: Routledge, 2010)Google Scholar; Kititasnasorchai, Vipon & Tasneeyanond, Panat, “Thai Environmental Law” (2000) 4 S.J.I.C.L. 1 Google Scholar; Deva, Surya, “Public interest Litigation in India: a Quest to Achieve the Impossible?” in Yap, Po Jen & Lau, Holning, eds., Public interest litigation in Asia (London: Routledge, 2010)Google Scholar.

² A.I.R. SC. 298,317 (1981).

³ The Indo-Pak Sub Continent including Bangladesh and Nepal.

⁴ In this case, the court provides the framework of this type of litigation as follows: “[W]here a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without any authority of law…and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court of relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ”. For details, see AIR S.C. 149 (1982) at 188.

⁵ Established in 1992, BELA is the best known Bangladeshi NGO working with the broad objective of promoting environmental justice and contributing to the development of sound environmental jurisprudence. BELA is a member of IUCN–the World Conservation Union, Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide and the South Asian Watch on Trade, Economics and Environment. In 2003 it received the Global (00 Role of Honors of the United Nations. For details, see online: <http://www.belabangla.org/bela/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48:introducing-bela&catid=40:belabangla> (last accessed 17 November 2011).

⁶ Writ Petition No. 891 of 1994. Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque was the founder of BELA.

⁷ Writ Petition No. 998 of 1994.

⁸ The Supreme Court of Bangladesh is the highest court of this country. This court is divided into two Divisions: The Appellate Division and the High Court Division. Both these divisions sit in Dhaka. The High Court Division has some original jurisdiction and it is the appellate authority of the subordinate courts. It decides all writ petitions. Against the decision of this Division, an aggrieved person can go to the Appellate Division. The decision of this Division is final. These Divisions are safeguarded by the Constitution and they provide clarification of any issues related to the constitutional provisions. For details, see Articles 94-113 of the Constitution of the Peoples' Republic of Bangladesh.

⁹ Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh and Others, 55 DLR (HCD) 69 (2003) (hereinafter Industrial Pollution Case) at [62]Google Scholar; Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh and Others, (0 DLR (HCD) 84 (1998) at [83] (hereinafter FAP 20 Judgment on Merit) Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Asian Centre for Human Rights, “Bangladesh's Offer: Become GONGOs or Be Ready for Government Takeover”, online: <http://www.achrweb.org/Review/2004/0704.htm> (last accessed 28 January 2009)+(last+accessed+28+January+2009)>Google Scholar; Kibria, Shah A.M.S., “Farewell to the NGOs: Their Days in Bangladesh are Over?” The Daily Star (6 February 2004)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Amnesty International, “Bangladesh: Human Rights Defenders Under Attack”, online: <http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA13/004/2005/en/dom-ASA130042005en.pdf> (last accessed 28 January 2009)+(last+accessed+28+January+2009)>Google Scholar.

¹² Key questions answered by social movement theorists include “why movements originate when they do, how they attract and maintain support, how they present issues and formulate strategies and tactics, how they structure organizations, how they change cultures, why they generate opposition and sometimes decline, and how and why they succeed or fail in their objectives”, Staggenborg, S., Social Movements (Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 2 Google Scholar.

¹³ There are different definitions of social movements, and some of these do not even consider litigation as a social movement tactic/strategy. Given this, this article confined it within the established thoughts of social movement and judicial activism, and do not attempt to made any comparative study with the different definitions of social movement and judicial activism.

¹⁴ McCann, M., “How Does Law Matter for Social Movements” in Garth, B. & Sarat, A., eds., How Does Law Matter (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1998) at 77 Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Tilly, C., Social Movements, 1768-2004 (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2004) at 4 Google Scholar. For Tilly, authorities include government officials, property owners, religious functionaries and other whose action or inaction significantly affect the welfare of many people.

¹⁶ Ibid. at 7.

¹⁷ Ibid. at 4; “A campaign always links at least three parties: a group of self-designated claimants, some object(s) of claims, and a public of some kind. Not the solo actions of claimants, object(s), or public, but interactions among the three, constitute a social movement. (emphasis added)”.

¹⁸ Ibid. at 3.

¹⁹ Tilly, C. & Tarrow, S., Contentious Politics (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2007) at 8 Google Scholar.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ See S. Staggenborg, Social Movements, supra note 12 at 6-7.

²² C. Tilly, Social Movements, 1768-2004, supra note 15 at 7.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ McCann, M., “Introduction” in McCann, M., ed., Law and Social Movements (Burlington: Ashgate, 2006) at xiv Google Scholar.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Ibid. See also Fitzgerald, K. J. & Kathleen, J., “Radical Social Movement Organizations: A Theoretical Model” (2000) 41(4) The Sociological Quarterly 573–592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ Ibid.

²⁸ Ibid.

²⁹ McCann, M., “Legal Mobilization and Social Reform Movements” in McCann, M., ed., Law and Social Movements (Burlington: Ashgate, 2006) at 3–32 Google Scholar.

³⁰ Regarding Rosengber's perspective, see Rosenberg, G., The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991) at xii+425 Google Scholar; Rosenberg, G., “Hollow Hopes and Other Aspirations: A Reply to Feeley and McCann” (1993) 17 Law & Soc. Inquiry 761–778 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for a critique of Rosenberg's arguments, see Feeley, M., “Hollow Hopes, Flypaper, and Metaphors” 17 Law & Soc. Inquiry 745–760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³¹ McCann, , Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization (Chicago: Chicago University Press Ltd, 1994)Google Scholar; McCann, M., “Reform Litigation on Trial” (1992) 4 Law & Social Movements 715–747 Google Scholar.

³² Scheingold argues that law surfaces, at least in part, as a “myth of rights.” The myth of rights refers to the widespread assumption that 1) “litigation can evoke a declaration of rights from courts,” 2) “that it can, further, be used to assure the realization of these rights,” and 3) “that realization is tantamount to meaningful change”. In this way, the myth of rights expresses an elemental faith in the promises of constitutional government, a “faith in the political efficacy and ethical sufficiency of law as a principle of government.” For details, see Scheingold, S., The politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy, and Political Change (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³³ Ibid. at 3.

³⁴ Ibid.

³⁵ Ibid.

³⁶ Ibid.

³⁷ Ibid. at 4.

³⁸ Ibid.

³⁹ Galanter, M., “Reading the Landscape of Disputes: What We Know and Don't Know (and Think We Know) about our Allegedly Contentious and Litigious Society” (1983) 31 UCLAL Rev. 4 at 127 Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Ibid.

⁴¹ M. McCann, supra note 14 at 81.

⁴² Ibid. at 82.

⁴³ Ibid.

⁴⁴ Ibid.

⁴⁵ It would be worth describing the nexus amongst “right litigation”, opportunities and resource mobilisation. Litigations for rights arose due to two sets of reasons – changes to political opportunity and the involvement of certain types of people in the political movement, specially lawyers. Political opportunity (including the justice delivery system) structure is a concept under a social movement theory known as “political process model”. In this process, resource mobilisation is a vital component. In the political process model, resource mobilisation is also called “mobilising structures” that refers to the ability of the social actors like human and organisation. This is an extended version of the thoughts of resource mobilisation within the political process model. In this article, when we refer to “structural opportunity” we usually mean this version of resource mobilisation. For details of these types of resource mobilisation, see Buechlers, S. M., Social Movement Theory: A Sociology of Knowledge Analysis in Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism: The Political Economy and Cultural Construction of Social Activism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Adams, D., Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency 1930-1970 (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ EPA (USA), “Environmental Justice”, online: <http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/index.html> (last accessed 27 April 2009)+(last+accessed+27+April+2009)>Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Shrader-Frechette, K., Environmental Justice: Creating Equality, Reclaiming Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) at 3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁸ See BCEAS, “BCAS website”, online: <http://www.bcas.net/AboutBCAS/About_Index.html> (last accessed 17 April 2009)+(last+accessed+17+April+2009)>Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ UNEP, “Climate Change Links 2008 Champions of the Earth Award Winners”, online: <http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?documentid=525andarticleid=5738andl=en> (last accessed 25 June 2009)+(last+accessed+25+June+2009)>Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ See BAPA, “BAPA website”, online: <http://www.bapa.org.bd/Default.aspx> (last accessed 27 May 2009).

⁵¹ See Ahsan, D. A. et al., “The Relationship of National and International Environmental NGOs in Bangladesh and Their Role in Wetland Conservation” (2009) 3 International Journal of Environmental Research 23 at 31 Google Scholar; and Islam, N., “Broader Significance of the Environmental Movement in Bangladesh”, online: <http://www.ben-center.org/BEN/BAPA/ nazrulislam.oct20.htm> (last accessed 10 January 2009)Google Scholar.

⁵² Tilly, supra note 15 at 6: (“Analysts often confuse a movement's collective action with the organizations and networks that support the action or even consider the organizations and networks to constitute the movement…rather than the networks in which they engage”).

⁵³ Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh and Others, 55 DLR (HCD) 613 (2003) (hereinafter Dhaka City Vehicular Pollution Case) Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Some of these cases are: Nijera Kori v. Bangladesh and others, Writ Petition no. 7248 of 2003 (Illegal Shrimp Cultivation); Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) and Global Village, Rangamati v. Bangladesh and others, Writ Petition No. 2459 of 2004 (Construction of a Community Centre in the Sole Municipal Park of Rangamati town); Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) and Thengamara Mohila Sabuj Sangha (TMSS) v. Bangladesh and others, Writ Petition No. 4244/04 (Illegal Sand Extraction from River Korota); Nijera Kori and others v. Bangladesh and others, Writ Petition No. 5194 of 2004 (Illegal Shrimp Cultivation and Settlement of Land in favour of Landless People). See BELA, “List of Public Interest Litigation”, online: <http://www.belabangla.org/html/pil.htm> (last accessed 30 January 2009)+(last+accessed+30+January+2009)>Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ BELA's website lists 62 cases it has filed, about 43 of which have had some sort of decision. Most of the decided cases had positive outcome: online: <http://www.belabangla.org/ html/pil.htm> (last accessed 29 June 2009); none of the other organisations surveyed had anything close to these numbers on environmental issues.

⁵⁶ See UNEP and ESCAP, Coastal Environmental Management Plan for Bangladesh Vol. One: Summary (Bangkok: UN, 1987)Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Farooque, M., “Regulatory Framework and Some Examples of Environmental Contamination in Bangladesh” in BELA, , ed., Selected Writings of Mohiuddin Farooque (Dhaka: BELA, 2004) at 20 Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Chodosh, H. E. et al., “Indian Civil Justice System Reform: Limitation and Preservation of the Adversarial Process” (1997-1998) 30 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 1 at 1–4 Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ For a more detailed outline of the procedural rights in the courts of Bangladesh, see Razzaque, J., Public interest environmental litigation in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2004) at 191–193 Google Scholar; 289-292.

⁶⁰ For a more elaborate discussion of environmental PIL in Bangladesh, see ibid.; For the literature on the PIL in general in Bangladesh, see Ahmed, N., Public Interest Litigation in Bangladesh: Constitutional Issues and Remedies (Dhaka: BLAST, 1999 Google Scholar); Haque, R., Judicial Activism in Bangladesh: A Golden Mean Approach (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011)Google Scholar; Mesnki, W., “Public Interest Litigation: Deliverance From all Evils” (2002) 6 Bangladesh Journal of Law 1–9 Google Scholar; Cooper, J., “Public Interest Law Revisited” (2000) 2 (1) Bangladesh Journal of Law 1–25 Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh and Others, 48 DLR (HCD) 438 (1996) (hereinafter Radiated Milk Case) Google Scholar.

⁶² Ibid, at [4].

⁶³ Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh and Others, 49 DLR (AD) 1 (1997) (hereinafter FAP 20 Case)Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ From the Judgment and Order dated 18-8-94 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 998 of 1994.

⁶⁵ The Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh (As Modified up to 17 May 2004), Article 102 (1) The High Court Division on the application of any person aggrieved, may give such directions or orders to any person or authority, including any person performing any function in connection with the affairs of the Republic, as may be appropriate for the enforcement of any the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of this Constitution.

⁶⁶ FAP 20 Case, supra note 63 at [25].

⁶⁷ Ibid. at [44].

⁶⁸ Ibid. at [55].

⁶⁹ Ibid. at [102].

⁷⁰ Industrial Pollution Case, supra note 9 at [53].

⁷¹ Ibid. at [13] and [14].

⁷² Ibid. at [18].

⁷³ [2] SCC 577 (1995) at [7].

⁷⁴ Rabia Bhuiyan, MP v Ministry of LGRD and others, 59 DLR (AD) 176 (2007) at [25]Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Boyle, A., “The Role of International Human Rights Law in the Protection of the Environment” in Boyle, A. & Anderson, M., eds., Human Rights Approaches to Environmental Protection (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) at 50 Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ See e.g., UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III): provides for the right to life under Article 3 and the right to a standard of living adequate for health and wellbeing in Article 25.

⁷⁷ International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 (ICESCR), 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976), Art. 12.

⁷⁸ See Arts. 2 ICCPR, 1966 and ICESCR, 1966.

⁷⁹ CCPR, CCPR General Comment No. 6 The Right to Life, 30 April 1982, online: <http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/84ab9690ccd81fc7c12563ed0046fae3> (last accessed 28 April 2009)+(last+accessed+28+April+2009)>Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Ibid., para. 1.

⁸¹ Department of Environment, List of Environment Related International Conventions, Protocols, Treaties Signed/Ratified by Bangladesh, online: <http://www.doe-bd.org/agreement.html> (last accessed 28 April 2009)+(last+accessed+28+April+2009)>Google Scholar.

⁸² M. McCann, supra note 29 at 10.

⁸³ Ibid. at 10-11.

⁸⁴ See generally; Damodhar Rao v. Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad (AIR 1987 AP 170)Google Scholar; L. K. Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1988 Raj 2)Google Scholar; V. Lakshmipathy v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1992 Kant 57)Google Scholar; Chetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangarsh Samiti v. State of UP (AIR 1990 SC 2060)Google Scholar; Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (AIR 1991 SC 420)Google Scholar; Virendra Gaur v. State of Haryana 2 SCC 577 (1995)Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ According to McCann, “Legally constituted ways of doing carry with them their own limitations, biases, and burdensome baggage.” McCann, supra note 29 at 6.

⁸⁶ FAP 20 Case, supra note 63.

⁸⁷ FAP 20 Case, supra note 63at [47].

⁸⁸ Ibid. at [97].

⁸⁹ 26 DLR (SC) 44 (1974).

⁹⁰ Ibid. at [17] and [18].

⁹¹ Ibid. at [18].

⁹² Bangladesh Sangbadpatra Parishad (BSP) v Bangladesh 43 DLR (AD) 126 (1991) at [12]Google Scholar.

⁹³ Dada Match Workers Union v Bangladesh 29 DLR (HCD) 188 (1977)Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ Bangladesh Retired Government Employees Welfare Association v Bangladesh 46 DLR (HCD) 426 (1994) at [21]Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ On implementation of these international environmental law principles in Bangladesh, see generally, Razzaque, Public interest environmental litigation in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, supra note 59, at 333-73.

⁹⁶ Bangladesh Paribesh Andolon and another v Bangladesh and others 58 DLR (HCD) 441 (2006) at [28]Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ Ibid. at [29].

⁹⁸ Ibid. at [34].

⁹⁹ Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972, 23 November 1972, 1037 UNTS 151 (entered into force 15 December 1975)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Radiated Milk Case, supra note 61. See Razzaque, Public interest environmental litigation in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, supra note 59, at 357-58.

¹⁰¹ Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others, Writ Petition No. 3916 of 2006, judgment delivered on 6 July 2006, unreported (hereinafter MT Alfaship Case) at 4 Google Scholar.

¹⁰² Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Ministry of Land and others, Writ Petition no. 4286 of 2003.

¹⁰³ Gaurang Proshad Roy and Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others, Writ Petition No. 5732 of 2005.

¹⁰⁴ M. McCann, supra note 29 at 8.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid.

¹⁰⁶ Ibid. at 11-15.

¹⁰⁷ In 2003, BELA became a laureate of the UNEP Global 500 Role of Honour, See UNEP, Adult Award Winner in 2003, online: <http://www.global500.org/ViewLaureate.asp7IXb724> (last accessed 9 May 2009 +(last+accessed+9+May+2009>Google ScholarPubMed.

¹⁰⁸ McCann, supra note 29 at 18.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid.

¹¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹¹ Hilson, C., “New Social Movements: the Role of Legal Opportunity” (2002) 9 Journal of European Public Policy 238 at 240–241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹² Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Election Commission and others, Writ Petition No. 186/1994 (Nuisance during Election Campaign)

¹¹³ BELA also relates with international alliances like IUCN-the World Conservation Union, Friends of the Earth International and Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (E-LAW).

¹¹⁴ McQuay, K. & Kabir, S., “Reflecting on Rizwana Hasan's Goldman environmental Prize”, online: <http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2009/04/22/reflecting-on-rizwana-hasans-goldman-environmental-prize/> (last accessed 1 May 2009)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ To date, BELA has received financial assistance from a number of organisations including the Government of Bangladesh, Canadian International Development Agency, United Nations Development Programme and Manusher Jonno Foundation.

¹¹⁶ Hilson, “New Social Movements: the Role of Legal Opportunity”, supra note 111, at 240.

¹¹⁷ McCarthy, J. & Zald, M., “Resource Mobilization and Social Movement: A Partial Theory” in Goodwin, J. & Jasper, J., eds., Social Movements (London: Routledge, 2007) at 33 Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ Hilson, “New Social Movements: the Role of Legal Opportunity”, supra note 111, at 242.

¹¹⁹ Ibid.

¹²⁰ The Access Imitative, BELA, online: <http://www.accessinitiative.org/partner/bela> (last accessed 4 November 2012).

¹²¹ Hilson, “New Social Movements: the Role of Legal Opportunity”, supra note 111, at 243.

¹²² Cohen, M. & Kremnitzer, M., “Judicial Activism: A Multidimensional Model” (2005) 18 Can. J.L. & Jur. 333 at 336 Google Scholar.

¹²³ Ibid, at 341.

¹²⁴ Ibid. at 342.

¹²⁵ McCann, supra note 29 at 4.

¹²⁶ See Rosencranz, A. & Jackson, M., “The Delhi Pollution Case: The Supreme Court of India and the Limits of Judicial Power” (2003) 28 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 223 Google Scholar. (Demonstrates with the Delhi Pollution case how litigation would not always provide long term environmental protection); Rajamani, L., “Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability” (2007) 19 J. Envtl. L. 293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. (Highlights the limitations and other concerns that arise from the exercise of public interest environmental jurisdiction in Indian courts).

¹²⁷ Rajamani, “Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability”, supra note 126 at 295-296.

¹²⁸ Pet, S.C. Writ. (Civil), M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1985) (No. 13029/1985)Google Scholar.

¹²⁹ A. Rosencranz & M. Jackson, “The Delhi Pollution Case: The Supreme Court of India and the Limits of Judicial Power”, supra note 126 at 253-254.

¹³⁰ Peiris, G.L., “Public Interest Litigation in the Indian Subcontinent: Current Dimensions” (1991) 40 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 66 at 89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³¹ Ibid. at 72.

¹³² Ibid. at 75-80.

¹³³ Khosla, Madhav, “Addressing Judicial Activism in the Indian Supreme Court: Towards an Evolved Debate” (2009) 32 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 55 at 55–56 Google Scholar.

¹³⁴ Peiris, supra note 130 at 70.

¹³⁵ Ibid, at 75.

¹³⁶ Sripati, Vijayashri, “Human Rights in India-Fifty Years after Independence” (1997) 26 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 93 at 121 Google Scholar.

¹³⁷ FAP 20 Case, supra note 63, at [97]; Dada Match Workers Union, supra note 93.

¹³⁸ FAP 20 Case, supra note 63 at [86].

¹³⁹ See also Razzaque, Public interest environmental litigation in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, supra note 59, at 292: “As the Constitution [of Bangladesh] suggested the ‘aggrieved person’ test, the court is hesitant to ignore this test altogether. Rather, they have interpreted it within the framework of the ‘aggrieved person’ test with all the flavour of the ‘sufficient interest’ test.”

¹⁴⁰ Rajamani, “Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability”, supra note 126, at 309.

¹⁴¹ Dhaka City Vehicular Pollution Case, supra note 53 at 36.

¹⁴² “Air Pollution”, The Daily Star (24 April 2009)Google ScholarPubMed.

¹⁴³ FAP 20 Judgment on Merit, supra note 9.

¹⁴⁴ Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and others, Writ Petition No. 1691 of 2001 (hereinafter PAP Case).

¹⁴⁵ BELA, “List of Public Interest Litigation”, online: <http://www.belabangla.org/html/pil.htm> (last accessed 30 January 2009)+(last+accessed+30+January+2009)>Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁶ Sarkar, Satadal, “When Will the Waste Flow in the Buriganga Stop?” The Prothom Alo (Dhaka) (10 November 2010)Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁷ Product-Wise and Region-Wise exports, the Ministry of Commerce of the Government of Bangladesh, online: <http://www.epb.gov.bd/?NoParameter&theme=default&Script=exporttrend#Region> (last accessed 14 February 2011).

¹⁴⁸ Rasul, Mohammad Golam, Islam, Faisal & Khan, Mohammad Masud Kamal, “Environmental Pollution Generated from Process industries in Bangladesh” (2006) 28(1) International Journal of Environment and Pollution 144 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴⁹ Haque, A.K. Enamul, “Human Health and Human Welfare Costs of Environmental Pollution from the Tanning Industry in Dhaka – An Environmental Impact Study” in Sharif, Moinul islam & Mainuddin, Khandaker, Country Case Study on Environmental Requirements for Leather and Footwear Export from Bangladesh (Dhaka: Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, 2003) at 10 Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁰ Sharif & Mainuddin, ibid. at 9; for details and the source of this information, see Sarkar, “When Will the Waste Flow in the Buriganga Stop?”, supra note 146.

¹⁵¹ Khan, Anisur Rahman, “Tanneries Relocation Move Hits Roadblock” The Independent (Dhaka) (21 July 2010)Google Scholar.

¹⁵² Ibid.; Satadal Sarkar, “When Will the Waste Flow in the Buriganga Stop?”, supra note 146.

¹⁵³ Industrial Pollution Case, supra note 9.

¹⁵⁴ Ibid. A synopsis of this case is available at Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers association, “List of Selected Public interest Litigation (PIL) of BELA”, online: <http://www.belabangla.org/pdf/pil.pdf> (last accessed 22 October 2011)+(last+accessed+22+October+2011)>Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁵ Ibid.

¹⁵⁶ A.K. Enamul Haque, “Human Health and Human Welfare Costs of Environmental Pollution from the Tanning Industry in Dhaka—An Environmental Impact Study”, supra note 149 at 9, 10.

¹⁵⁷ Khan, Anisur Rahman, “Tanneries Relocation Move Hits Roadblock” The Independent (Dhaka) 121 July 2010)Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁸ Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh and Others, Writ Petition No. 1430 of 2003.

¹⁵⁹ Hasnat, Abul & Kormokar, Suvongkor, “Leather Industry Passing a Critical Situation” The Prothom Alo (5 November 2011)Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁰ Bangladesh Environment Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works and others, Writ Petition No. 4604 of 2004 (Judgment on 27 July 2005, unreported) (Modhumoti Model Town Case).

¹⁶¹ Ibid.

¹⁶² “Amended Rules Soon to Stop Unplanned Urbanisation” The Daily Star (21 July 2008)Google Scholar.

¹⁶³ Rajamani, “Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability”, supra note 126, at 315-316.

¹⁶⁴ A. Rosencranz & M. Jackson, “The Delhi Pollution Case: The Supreme Court of India and the Limits of Judicial Power”, supra note 126.

¹⁶⁵ Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Shipping and others (Unreported, order dated 05 March 2009 and 17 March 2009), online: <http://www.elaw.org/node/3747> (last accessed 9 May 2009) at [9]+(last+accessed+9+May+2009)+at+[9]>Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁶ Rabia Bhuiyan, MP v. Ministry of LGRD and others, 55 DLR (AD) 184 (2007) at [29]Google Scholar.

¹⁶⁷ 6 SCC 12 1999 at [2.4].

¹⁶⁸ Dhaka City Vehicular Pollution Case, supra note 53 at [15].

¹⁶⁹ M. Zald & R. Ash, “Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay and Change” in J. Goodwin and J. Jasper, eds., Social Movements, supra note 117 at 76.

¹⁷⁰ Ibid. at 302-303.

¹⁷¹ McCarthy, Liz, “Bangladesh Shopbreaking Protest Slammed as Fake” Lloyed's List, online: <http://www.shipbreakingbd.info/newspaper_news/Lloyed_List_23_02_10.html> (last accessed 17 December 2010)Google ScholarPubMed.

¹⁷² Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Bangladesh, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Shipping and others, supra note 165.

¹⁷³ McCarthy, supra note 171.

¹⁷⁴ The Goldman Environmental Prize, “Syeda Rizwana Hasan”, online: <http://goldmanprize.org/2009/asia> (last accessed 28 June 2009)+(last+accessed+28+June+2009)>Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁵ Ibid.

¹⁷⁶ There are no official statistics regarding human casualties in these yards. The figures relating to these casualties are dependent on regular local media releases complied by local NGOs. According to these sources, 500 people died over the last fifteen years, with 200 deaths occurring in the last five years. In both cases, these deaths amount to between 1,000-1,200 over the last three decades, assuming that the annual loss of life of shipbreaking workers is more or less the same in each year. However, these figures do not cover the deaths of workers who die as a result of chronic diseases due to exposure to toxic substances. For details, Vardar, Erdem et al., “End of Life Ships: The Human Cost of Breaking Ships” (December 2005)Google Scholar. This report can be found online at <http://www/fidh.org/IMG/pdf/shipbreaking2005a.pdf> (last accessed 14 November 2011). For a detailed discussion on the PIL related with labour regulation of this industry, see Md.Karim, Saiful, “Violation of Labour Rights in the Ship-Breaking Yards of Bangladesh: Legal Norms and Reality” (2009) 25(4) Int'l J. Comp. Lab. L. & Ind. Rel. 379 Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁷ Marc Galanter has explained the theoretical issues related with such dilemma. For details see Galanter, M., “Why the ‘haves’ come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change” (1974) 9 Law & Soc'y Rev. 95–160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; See also Huda, Shahnaz, Protecting the Common Good: Successes in Public Interest Litigation (Dhaka: Asia Foundation, 2002)Google Scholar.

¹⁷⁸ For instance, in the last few years, Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh, an NGO, alone has filed more than 50 PILs. In these PILs, this NGO along with its president Advocate Mr. Monjil Murshed, has sought judicial direction for multifarious issues ranging from the issues related with the evacuation of markets from car parks, police action for protecting minorities, publication of investigation report of a murder case, illegal encroachment of rivers and so on. We tried to get details of this NGO's PIL profile, but did not get in its website. The website does not even provide details of its contact. The link of its website is <http://hrpb.org/index.php>.

¹⁷⁹ McQuay & Kabir, “Reflecting on Rizwana Hasan's Goldman environmental Prize”, supra note 114.

¹⁸⁰ Rosenberg, G., The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991) at xii+425 Google Scholar; Rosenberg, G., “Hollow Hopes and Other Aspirations: A Reply to Feeley and McCann” (1993) 17 Law & Soc. Inquiry 761–778 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for a critique of Rosenberg's arguments, see Feeley, M., “Hollow Hopes, Flypaper, and Metaphors” 17 Law & Social Inquiry 745–760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸¹ Baxi, U., “Preface” in Sathe, S.P., ed., Judicial Activism in India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

¹⁸² L. Rajamani, “Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability”, supra note 126 at 296.

¹⁸³ It would be worth mentioning the latest reported PIL at this point. In a leave to appeal against High Court Division order in Writ Petition No. 3503 on 2009, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has put the maxim “Salus Papuli Suprema lex” in the imperative, that is, “Salus Papuli suprema lex esto” – let the safety of the people be the supreme law. The impact of this notion taken by the apex court would be many. One of those effects would be the use of PIL as a means of getting personal redress. For details, see 62 DLR(AD) 2010, at 428-435.

¹⁸⁴ Karkkainen, Bradley, “New Governance In Legal Thought And In The World: Some Splitting As Antidote To Overzealous Lumping” (2004) 89 Minn. L. Rev. 471 Google Scholar.

¹⁸⁵ Hassan, P. & Azfar, A., “Securing Environmental Rights Through Public Interest Litigation In South Asia” (2003) 22 Va. Envtl. L.J. 215 at 246 Google Scholar; For more details see Barnett, R., “The Civil Liberties Movement In India: New Approaches To The State And Social Change” (1987) 27(3) Asian Survey 371–392 Google Scholar; Thiruvengadam, A.K., “In Pursuit of ‘The Common Illumination of Our House’: Trans-Judicial Influence and the Origins of PIL Jurisprudence In South Asia” (2008) 2 Indian Journal Of Constitution Law 67–103 Google Scholar.