Key provisions of MIDA Act challenged in High Court

The High Court has issued a rule questioning the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Moheshkhali Integrated Development Authority (MIDA) Act, 2026, particularly those relating to development planning, land use, environmental management and local governance.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice S M Iftekhar Uddin Mahmud issued the rule following a writ petition filed by Lawyers for Energy, Environment and Development (LEED) and Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN).

The court asked the respondents to explain why Sections 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20 and 24 of the Act should not be declared illegal, unconstitutional and without lawful authority.

Advocate Abdullah Al Noman filed the petition, while Advocate Monira Haque Moni appeared for the petitioners during the hearing.

The petitioners argue that the challenged provisions give MIDA extensive authority over development master plans, land-use planning, environmental management and regulatory matters in Moheshkhali. They contend that concentrating such powers in a specialised executive authority raises questions regarding their compatibility with Articles 18A, 27, 31, 32, 36, 40, 42, 59 and 60 of the Constitution.

These constitutional provisions relate, among other matters, to environmental protection, equality before law, protection of law, life and personal liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of profession or occupation, property rights and local government.

The petitioners have also raised concerns about the environmental governance structure of MIDA. Moheshkhali is a coastal and wetland area with significant biodiversity and ecological sensitivity. However, the 12-member governing board of MIDA does not include a representative from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, according to the petition.

They argue that this omission raises questions about the government's constitutional responsibility under Article 18A to protect the environment, natural resources and biodiversity.

The petitioners further contend that development 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.

In particular, they maintain that the MIDA Act cannot be interpreted or applied in a manner that allows industries or projects legally requiring environmental clearance to bypass the approval process of the Department of Environment.

Another major concern raised in the petition is the absence of an effective mechanism for meaningful participation by local residents and affected communities in MIDA's decision-making process.

The petitioners state that the MIDA Ordinance, 2025, which preceded the 2026 Act, was introduced without adequate public hearings or meaningful consultation with affected communities. They argue that excluding people from decisions that may have far-reaching consequences for land, livelihoods, the environment and settlements is inconsistent with the participatory principles reflected in Article 11 of the Constitution.

The writ petition specifically challenges Sections 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15, which give MIDA broad powers relating to the development master plan, land-use planning and restrictions concerning land, as well as the formulation of related rules and regulations.

According to the petitioners, the exercise of these powers is not sufficiently linked to mandatory public consultation, disclosure of information, public hearings, opportunities for affected people to raise objections or adequate procedural safeguards for landowners.

They argue that, without such safeguards, executive decisions under the Act could have significant consequences for land, property, settlements, livelihoods and economic activities without adequate due process.

The petition also highlights the dependence of local communities in Moheshkhali on traditional economic activities, including salt cultivation, fishing and shrimp farming.

The petitioners contend that converting salt fields and other livelihood-dependent land into industrial or development zones could affect the longstanding sources of income of local communities. In their view, the absence of adequate safeguards, rehabilitation and compensation could raise constitutional concerns regarding the freedom of profession or occupation guaranteed under Article 40.

Referring to Articles 31 and 32, the petitioners further argue that the exercise of MIDA's powers could potentially lead to displacement of communities, disruption of traditional occupations, interference with settlements and loss of access to land and natural resources. Such consequences, they say, could directly affect people's constitutional rights to life, personal liberty and protection of law.

The petitioners, however, have clarified that they are not opposed to development, industrialisation, infrastructure expansion or economic transformation in Moheshkhali.

Their contention is that such development must take place within the framework of the Constitution, fundamental rights, democratic governance, environmental principles and the rule of law.

They argue that no development authority should be given powers that could arbitrarily interfere with people's constitutional rights and property or undermine the constitutionally recognised role of elected local government institutions.

At the broader level, the petition raises concerns about the concentration of authority over development planning, land use, environmental management, economic regulation and enforcement within a single executive authority without what the petitioners consider to be adequate mechanisms for democratic accountability, public participation and procedural safeguards.

The High Court's issuance of the rule does not amount to a final determination on the constitutional validity of the challenged provisions. The respondents will now have an opportunity to explain why the provisions should not be declared unconstitutional and unlawful.