On implementing the directions of the Court
![HC stays Jhenaidah-1 by-polls HC stays Jhenaidah-1 by-polls](https://tds-images.thedailystar.net/sites/default/files/styles/big_202/public/images/2023/08/11/court.jpg)
The High Court Division (HCD) has, over the years, made numerous significant directions and observations on issues ranging from environment protection to accountability of governmental entities and statutory bodies. However, these decisions have rarely been translated into any substantial changes in our day-to-day practices. This article focuses on some of these examples and the possible reasons underlying such phenomenon.
For instance, in 2020, the HCD ordered a ban on single-use plastic products in coastal areas, hotels, motels, and restaurants across the country in one year. To end rampant and pervasive use of plastic, the HCD additionally instructed the government to enforce the ban on use of plastic bags and to shut down manufacturing factories.
Despite the categoric judicial directions, as a study conducted by the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) in 2023 indicates, there has been a steep rise in annual per capita plastic consumption in urban areas, surpassing the previous figures. The study reveals a six-fold increase in the consumption of LDPE packaging materials since 2005.
In addition to this, in 2020, the HCD directed the Bangladesh Road Transport Authority (BRTA) to increase the number of vehicle fitness testing centers to monitor unfit vehicles. However, the number of unfit vehicles increased from 2.9 lacs in 2019 to 5.08 lacs in 2022. Thus, the massive increase in the consumption and usage of plastic and in the number of unfit vehicles clearly contrasts the directions of the court.
Like these, there are numerous instances where the directions of the court have not been complied with and have not yielded optimistic results. Well-crafted court orders are often ignored and they indicate the acute need for smooth interaction and coordination among different organs of the state. Lack of political will across multiple governance tiers, resource constraints and administrative bottlenecks can be underscored as the central issues which prevent the implementation of the directions of the courts. The schism between direction and implementation increases with time due to the absence of effective monitoring and public awareness as well.
Although there is no effective monitoring body, the court has the power to appoint committees to oversee implementation of certain orders. Indeed, in some cases, the court has sought to monitor and supervise the implementation of its orders by appointing supervisory committees. It may be argued that only cases with high public exposure get such supervision. To address this, the court needs to establish a mechanism to administer and supervise implementation of its directions in every instance, instead of selective ones.
In conclusion, the unpleasant relationship between direction and implementation needs to be taken into consideration at the earliest for the sake of good governance and rule of law. The judicial system, law enforcement agencies, and the public must work together to ensure proper implementation to realise the directions that the court lay down.
The writer is a final year law student at London College of Legal Studies (South).
Comments