HC issues rule challenging legality of several MIDA Act provisions
The High Court has issued a rule asking why several provisions of the Maheshkhali Integrated Development Authority (MIDA) Act, 2026 should not be declared illegal, unconstitutional and without lawful authority, citing concerns over environmental protection, land and livelihood rights, and the concentration of powers over local government.
The High Court Division bench of Justice Ahmed Sohel and Justice SM Iftekhar Uddin Mahmud issued the rule after the preliminary hearing of a writ petition filed challenging the validity of the provisions.
The secretary of the Ministry of Law and other relevant government officials have been made respondents to the rule.
The respondents have been asked to explain why Sections 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20 and 24 of the MIDA Act, 2026 should not be declared illegal, unconstitutional and without lawful authority.
Advocate Abdullah Al Noman filed the writ petition on behalf of Lawyers for Energy, Environment and Development (LEAD) and Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN). Advocate Monira Haque Moni represented the petitioners during the hearing.
Advocate Abdullah Al Noman said the constitutional question arose because excessive powers have been concentrated in the hands of a single executive authority without effective democratic accountability and procedural safeguards.
The writ petition said the relevant provisions of the MIDA Act have concentrated important powers relating to Maheshkhali’s master plan, land use and environmental regulation in the hands of a specialised executive authority.
According to the petition, this is inconsistent with the guarantees of environmental protection, equality before law, life and livelihood, freedom, property rights and local self-government protected under Articles 18A, 27, 31, 32, 36, 40, 42, 59 and 60 of the Constitution.
The petitioners also raised concerns over the lack of environmental representation on the MIDA board. Although Maheshkhali is an environmentally sensitive area, none of the 12 members of the board represents the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
They further claimed that the law could create an opportunity to bypass the requirement of environmental clearance from the Department of Environment, which, they argued, would violate Article 18A of the Constitution.
The petition also alleged that Sections 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 grant extensive powers over land use and the master plan without providing for mandatory public hearings, disclosure of information or opportunities for affected people to raise objections.
It said no consultation was held with local residents when the MIDA Ordinance, 2025 was previously promulgated, which the petitioners said was contrary to the principle of participatory governance under Article 11 of the Constitution.
The petitioners also raised concerns about the impact of industrialisation on local livelihoods and settlements.
They said Maheshkhali’s local economy mainly depends on salt farming, fishing and shrimp cultivation, and that local people could lose their traditional livelihoods and settlements if such land is used for industrialisation without adequate rehabilitation and safeguards.
According to the petition, such displacement and loss of livelihood would be contrary to Articles 31, 32 and 40 of the Constitution.
The writ petition further stated that although development is desirable, no authority can be given powers that weaken the constitutional role of elected local government institutions and undermine citizens’ rights.