The case of Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque vs. Bangladesh concerning “the issues of standing” is, perhaps, the most plausible example of judicial policy activism in Bangladesh. In this case, our judiciary has been successfully involved in the “right-based policy activism” by putting the status of non-justiciable principle in a new height. We can see the growing seeds of activism in the courageous step of our judiciary from a two-fold dimension:
In the first place, we can understand that the court has approached to develop and shape up its interpretive ethics with an essential and uncompromising reference to the ideals of our fundamental principles. Thus in determining the locus standi of the Appellant as being the person aggrieved, the court goes to interpret as follows:
“The preamble and article 8 also proclaim principles of absolute trust and faith in Almighty Allah as s fundamental principles of state policy. Absolute trust and faith in the Almighty Allah necessarily mean the duty to protect his creation, and environment. The Appellant is aggrieved, because Allah’s creations and environment are in the mortal danger of extinction and degradation.”
By interpreting a constitutional issue in such a way, the court has not only focused on the interpretative value of the fundamental principles but more obviously creates or recognize “an implementation agenda” by holding that that an act done contrary to the fundamental principles of state policy can make the concern person aggrieved. Thus it goes beyond the orthodoxy of non-justiciability doctrine and makes us keep the eye on how the seed of right-based activism grows on.
In this respect, it is, however, important to note that in proving himself as an aggrieved person, the Appellant also invoked the enforceability of another provision of fundamental principles, namely Article 21(1) of the Constitution which speaks for constitutional obligation of performing public duties and to protect public property.
In the same case, Justice Lutifur Rahman focused on the interpretive value of the fundamental principles by pointing out that court has the obligation to interpret the constitution in line of the fundamental principles as enshrined in the same. In connection to his conviction, he thensays:
“The principles, primarily being social and economic rights, oblige the state, amongst other things, to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people…A constitution of a country is a document of social evolution and it is dynamic in nature. It should encompass in itself the growing demands, needs of people and charge of time. A constitution cannot be morbid at all. The language used by the framers of the constitution must be given a meaningful interpretation with the evaluation and growth of our society. An obligation is cast on the constitution in a manner in which social, economic and political justice can be advanced for the state and its citizens.”
