Human Rights and the Environment

Environmental Policy and Law

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 99-111

  Razzaque, Jona ^a,b  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b Environmental Law Foundation   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COSTS; DECISION MAKING; POLLUTION; PUBLIC POLICY; SOCIAL ASPECTS; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL);

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING;

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HUMAN RIGHTS; LEGAL SYSTEM;

BANGLADESH; INDIA; PAKISTAN;

EID: 0036543246     PISSN: 0378777X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (116)

1. This article is part of a consultation document presented at the OHCHR-UNEP Joint Initiative on Human Rights and the Environment (Geneva, 14-16 January 2002).
2. This article will not touch upon the general debate on the nature of the relationship between human rights and the environment, nor will it mention various international and regional agreements dealing with these two areas. See: M. Fitzmaurice (1997) 'The Contribution of Environmental Law to the Development of Modern International Law', J. Makarczyk (ed.) Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Krzysztof Skubiszewski, The Hague, Kluwer, pp. 909-914 and 922-925.
3. P.E. Taylor (1998) 'From Environmental to Ecological Human Rights: A New Dynamic to International Law', Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 10, 309-395.
4. S. Hossain, S. Malik and B. Musa (eds) (1997) Public Interest Litigation in South Asia, UPL
5. S. Ahuja (1997) People, Law and Justice: A Casebook of Public Interest Litigation, Volumes 1 and 2, Orient Longman, Delhi.
6. R.B. Jain (1994) 'Conflict and Co-operation on Environmental Issues in South Asia', Journal of Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies 15(1), 37-59.
7. A.G.M. La Vina (1994) 'The Right to a Sound Environment in the Philippines: The Significance of the Minors Oposa Case' RECIEL 3(4), 246-252.
8. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, 623-624. Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746, 749-750.
9. Directive principles (DPs) such as equal pay for equal work, free legal aid, the right to a speedy trial, the right to livelihood, the right to education and DPs relating to the environment (Article 48A) are read in conjunction with fundamental rights.
10. P. Leelakrishnan (1992) Law and Environment, Eastern Book Company, India, Chapter 10, pp. 144-152.
11. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1480.
12. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420/1991 (1) SCC 598.
13. (1998) 9 SCC 589. In K. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala (AIR 1999 Kerala 385) the court held that smoking in public places causes a positive nuisance.
14. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1991) AIR SC 813 (Vehicular Pollution Case); (1992) Supp. (2) SCC 85; (1992) Supp. (2) SCC 86; (1992) 3 SCC 25.
15. A. Rosencranz et al. (1993) 'Region/Country Report: South Asia: India', Yearbook of International Environmental Law 4, 415-419.
16. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180: In the court's view, 'Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall deprive him of his life Any person, who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law, can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life conferred by Article 21.'
17. Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Others (1993) 4 Law Reports of the Commonwealth 182. Also in CLB (October 1994) 20, 1214-1215.
18. (1996) 2SCC 682. Similar view applied in State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998) 4 SCC 117.
19. Banawasi Seva Ashram v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1987 SC 374. See also Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180, Karajan Jalasay Y.A.S.A.S. Samity v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 532 and Gramin Sewa Sanstha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1986 (Supp.) SCC 578.
20. Reported in AIR 1992 SC 920.
21. A. Rosencranz (1993) 'Region/Country Report: South Asia: India' Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 434.
22. J. Razzaque (2001) 'Case Law Analysis: Application of Public Trust Doctrine in Indian Environmental Cases' Journal of Environmental Law 13(2), 221-234.
23. C.M. Rose (1998) 'Joseph Sax and the Idea of the Public Trust' Ecology LQ, 351.
24. C. Redgwell (1999) Intergenerational Trusts and Environmental Protection, OUP, Oxford, p. 68.
25. The intergenerational dimension deters the present generation from lessening the quality of natural resources and prevents the future generation 'from altering that use no matter how pressing the public need'. Redgwell (see above), p. 63.
26. The Indian Courts adopted a similar innovative approach when they established the 'polluter-pays' principle as a part of their national legal system. For example: Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC at 247.
27. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others (1997) 1 SCC 388.
28. Th. Majra Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation AIR 1999 J&K 81; M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd v. Radhey Shyam Sahu AIR 1999 SC 2468.
29. (1997) 1 SCC 388.
30. M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd v. Radhey Shyam Sahu AIR 1999 SC 2468.
31. Th. Majra Singh v. Indian Oil Corporation AIR 1999 J&K 81.
32. Dr. M. Farooque v. Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and 12 Others (Unreported). This case involved a petition against various ministries and other authorities for not fulfilling their statutory duties to mitigate air and noise pollution caused by motor vehicles in the city of Dhaka.
33. (1997) 49 Dhaka Law Reports (AD), p. 1. The legality of an experimental structural project of the huge Flood Action Plan (hereinafter, FAP) in Bangladesh was questioned. The petitioner alleged that FAP is an anti-environment and antipeople project, and that it is adversely affecting and injuring over a million people by displacing them, and by damaging the soil and destroying the natural habitat of fish, flora and fauna.
34. (1996) 48 Dhaka Law Reports, p. 438.
35. Khushi Kabir and Others v. Government of Bangladesh and Others. (W.P. No. 3091 of 2000).
36. In a similar case in India (S. Jagannath v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87) the court, while dealing with commercial aqauculture farming, held that strict environmental tests are required before permission will be granted for such farming to take place in fragile coastal areas. It added that a compulsory environmental impact assessment (EIA) must be carried out which would consider intergenerational equity and rehabilitation cost.
37. PLD 1994 SC 693, 712.
38. Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693).
39. The Employees of the Pakistan Law Commission v. Ministry of Works 1994 SCMR 1548.
40. Amanullah Khan v. Chairman, Medical Research Council 1995 SCMR 202. See also Pakistan Chest Foundation v. Government of Pakistan (1997) CLC 1379.
41. Similar arguments were put forward by the Thailand Restriction on Importation of Importation and Internal Taxes on Cigarettes (Thai Cigarette Case) Panel report adopted on 7 November 1990, BISD/37/S/200. Also, in the Voyage of Discovery Case (W.P No. 4521 of 1999) in Bangladesh, the petitioners (Bangladesh Cancer Society, Bangladesh Anti-drug Federation, Consumer Association of Bangladesh, Welfare Association of Cancer Care and Work for Better Bangladesh) argued that the activities of British American Tobacco violated the law of the country (Tobacco Products Control Act 1988 and Ordinance of 1990) and governmental health policy. The court granted a stay on all campaign activities of the Voyage of Discovery. See Prof. Nurul Islam (Cigarette Advertising Case) v. Bangladesh 52 DLR 2000 413. In India, K. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala (AIR 1999 Kerala 385) the court held that smoking tobacco in any form in public places is illegal, unconstitutional and violates Article 21. Smokers pose a serious threat to the lives of innocent non-smokers who are exposed to tobacco smoke, thereby violating their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
42. General Secretary, West Pakistan Salt Miners Labour Union (CBA) Khewara, Jhelum v. The Director, Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab, Lahore 1994 SCMR 2061.
43. Note that the Pakistani judiciary has consistently mentioned and applied Indian cases where the Indian judiciary has prioritised environmental and human rights aspects. For example, General Secretary, West Pakistan Salt Miners Labour Union (CBA) Khewara, Jhelum v. The Director, Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab, Lahore 1994 SCMR 2061. In Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693), the Supreme Court applied Indian cases such as: R.L. & E.K. v. State of UP (AIR 1985 SC 652) and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 1115 and AIR 1988 SC 1037).
44. A. Rosencranz et al. (eds) (2001) Environmental Law and Policy in India, OUP, New Delhi, p. 53.
45. Jibendra Kishore v. East Pakistan 9 DLR (SC) 21.
46. Dr. M. Farooque v. Bangladesh (1997) 49 DLR 1.
47. This right was deleted from the list of fundamental rights by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 in April 1979.
48. Banawasi Seva Ashram v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1987 SC 374.
49. The property right was considered in Dr. M. Farooque v. Bangladesh (1996) DLR 438.
50. For example, the Indian Environment Protection Act 1986, the Pakistan Environment Protection Act 1997 and the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act 1995.
51. The preamble of the Act states that it provides for the protection, conservation, rehabilitation and improvement of the environment, and for the prevention and control of pollution and the promotion of sustainable development.
52. Act No. 1 of 1995. The original Act is in Bengali. The unofficial English text is produced in M. Farooque and S. R. Hasan (eds) (1996) Laws Regulating Environment in Bangladesh, Dhaka, BELA, pp.720-728.
53. Section 9 of the Environment Conservation Act 1995. Provision in India and Pakistan provides the agency or board with the same power and incorporates the 'polluter-pays' principle.
54. M. Ullah (1999) Environmental Politics in Bangladesh, CFSD, Dhaka, pp. 153-161.
55. Buriganga river encroachment and Osmany Uddyan development project. J. Razzaque (1998) 'Country Report: Bangladesh' Yearbook of International Environmental Law 9 and 10 (1999).
56. 'Delhi allows Polluting Industries to Reopen', Environment News Service, 17 January 2000. See http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan2000/.
57. Environment Awareness Forum v. State of J and K (1999) 1 SCC 210; Centre for Environment Law, WWF I v. Union of India (1999) 1 SCC 263; T.N. Godavaram Thirumulpad v. Union of India AIR 1999 SC 43, Workmen of M/S Birla Textiles v. K.K. Birla and Others (1999) 3 SCC 475 and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India AIR 1999 SC 3345.
58. In India: The Indian Environment Protection Act 1986 and Rules 1992; The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 1951; The Environmental Clearance Notification Act 1993. In Bangladesh: Environment Conservation Act 1995 and Rules 1997. In Pakistan: Environment Protection Act 1997.
59. S.K. Ishaque (1997) 'Freedom of Information or Protection of Information?' PLD Journal 22.
60. In India: Section 19(b) of the Environment Protection Act 1986; National Environment Appellate Authority Act 1997. In Bangladesh: National Environment Management Action Programme (NEMAP); Section 17 of the Forest Act 1927; Section 8 of Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act 1995; Rule 5 of Bangladesh Environment Conservation Rules 1997. In Pakistan: The NWFP Salinity Control and Reclamation of Land Act 1988 (The government may, on its own motion, or on the application of any person, direct the authority to frame schemes for the control of salinity and reclamation of land in any local area or part thereof); Section 4(2) of the Pakistan Environment Protection Act 1997 (The Pakistan Environment Protection Council, on the request of any person, can direct the federal agency to prepare, submit, promote or implement projects for, inter alia, the prevention and control of pollution).
61. In Pakistan, Tractbel Khaleej Power Project (1996); Proposed Fauji Kabirwala Power Project (1995) and the Ghazi Barotha Hydropower Project (1995) and Indus Grid Transmission Project (1996); In Bangladesh, the Forestry Sector Project in Bangladesh (July 1996), SEIA of the Islam Cement Project in Bangladesh (1995), Bangladesh Small Scale Water Development Sector Project (1995), The Meghnaghat Power Project (1997) and Sunderbans Biodiversity Conservation Project (1998); In India, the LPG Pipeline Project (1997); Balagarh Thermal Power Project (1995) and the Power Transmission Improvement (Sector) Project (1998).
62. Articles 32 and 226 do not mention any specific tests for standing. Following the UK courts, the Indian High Courts first applied the 'aggrieved persons' test. In the early 1970s, the Indian court adopted the 'sufficient interest' test.
63. Constitution of Bangladesh, Article 102 states that the aggrieved persons test is followed in order to decide the standing in the High Court. Article 104 does not provide any specific test if the matter is before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court; the Constitution of Pakistan Article 184 does not provide any specific test if the issue is of public importance and if the matter is handled by the Supreme Court. Article 199 states that if there is a breach of fundamental rights and the matter is questioned in the High Court, the standing issue would be decided by applying the 'aggrieved persons' test.
64. M. Farooque v. Bangladesh (FAP case) [49 DLR (AD)1997 1]; Saiful Islam Dilder v. Bangladesh [50 DLR (1998) 318].
65. Benazir Bhutto v. The Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 416) (political case) and Darshan Masih v. State (PLD 1990 SC 513) (human rights case).
66. The Constitutions of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh allow the higher courts to initiate action on their own without any formal petition. These are commonly known as suo motu action. For example: in India: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case) (1997) 2 SCC 353; M.C. Mehta (Calcutta Tanneries Matter) v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 411; Pravinbhai v. Gujarat (1995) 2 GLH 352. In Bangladesh: Sharif N Ambia v. Bangladesh and Other (W.P. No. 937 of 1995); Dr. M. Farooque, BELA v. D.G. Bangladesh Medical and Dental Association (WP No. 1783 of 1994); M. Farooque v. Bangladesh (W.P. 92/1996); M. Farooque v. Bangladesh (W.P. No. 948/1997).
67. In India, H Acid case (AIR 1987 SC 1086).
68. In order to provide complete justice (Article 226), the court in India took account of letters [1990 (Supp.) SCC 77; 1994 (2) SCALE 25], memoranda (O.P. No. 6721 of 1992, Kerala), and newspaper articles (AIR 1992 Pat 86; W.P. No. 22598 of 1993, Madras).
69. Suo motu action is taken if the matter is of public importance (1994 ACMR 1028). The court, on various occasions, took account of a letter (PLD 1994 SC 693) and newspaper articles (H.R. case no. 31-K/92(Q)).
70. State v. Deputy Commissioner, Satkhira 45 DLR (HCD) 1993.
71. For example, in India, a special committee was created to monitor air quality and traffic congestion [(1998) 9 SCC 93], the court directed the archaeological survey to set up an automatic monitoring system [(1998) 3 SCC 381]; the court directed the subordinate green bench to monitor the compliance of the previous order [(1997) 2 SCC 411 and (1998) 9 SCC 448].
72. M.C. Mehta (Calcutta Tanneries Matter) v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 411.
73. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others (1997) 1 SCC 388; Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647.
74. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212.
75. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 382.
76. Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology and Others v. Ministry of Agriculture and Others (1999) 1 SCC 655.
77. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others (1998) 9 SCC 93.
78. One example of such a direction could be Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh (W.P. No. 92 of 1996). The petitioner submitted that the consumption of the imported food item containing radiation levels higher than the acceptable limit was injurious to public health and posed a threat to the life of the people of the country. The High Court made some directions to the Atomic Energy Commission and Customs Authority regarding the process of sampling and testing of radiation in dried milk, in order to avoid the same situation in future.
79. A Women's Legal Aid Cell was established by the AGHS, a human rights non-governmental organisation in Pakistan. It handles the legal needs of Pakistani women seeking to divorce abusive husbands. See also www.lchr.org/121/ pakistan0599.htm.
80. The Bhagwati Committee report on legal aid, published in 1977, aimed at devising new legal techniques and methods to bring to the courts the problems of the poor, for example class actions, group interest litigation etc. See also the National Legal Services Authorities Act 1987.
81. S. Ahuja (1997) People, Law and Justice: A Casebook of Public Interest Litigation, Volumes 1 and 2, Orient Longman, Delhi, and A. Rosencranz and S. Divan (eds) (2001) Environmental Law and Policy in India, OUP, India.
82. J. Razzaque (2001) 'Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan', PhD thesis, University of London.
83. J. Razzaque (2001) 'Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan', PhD thesis, University of London
84. A. Boyle and M.R. Anderson (eds) (1996) Human Right Approaches to Environmental Protection, Clarendon, Oxford.
85. Law Society of India v. Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd (AIR 1994 Ker 308 at 360).
86. In the Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum case (AIR 1996 SC 2715); (1996) 5 SCC 647 the Indian court noted that although the industry generates foreign exchange and provides employment, the court, citing the principle of sustainable development, concluded that the industry has 'no right to destroy the ecology, degrade the environment and pose a health hazard'.
87. In People United For Better Living in Calcutta-Public and Another v. State of West Bengal and Others (AIR 1993 Cal. 215), a petition was filed to prevent encroachment of wetlands in Calcutta. The Calcutta High Court observed that: 'there should be a proper balance between the protection of the environment and the development process: society should prosper, but not at the cost of the environment and in a similar vein, the environment should be protected but not at the cost of the development of society.' In the court's opinion, even if the government filed a report on the matter, only a portion of the wetlands should be available for development purpose.
88. In the Goa Foundation and Another v. Konkan Railway Corporation (AIR 1992 Bom 471) the court held that 'no development is possible without some adverse effect on the ecology and environment, but the project cannot be abandoned, and it is necessary to adjust the interest of the people as well as the necessity to maintain the environment. A balance has to be struck between the two interests and this exercise must be left to the persons who are familiar with and specialise in this field.'
89. In Bombay Environmental Action Group & Another v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1991 Bom 301) the Court stated that 'the needs of the environment require to be balanced with the needs of the community at large and the needs of a developing country'. See also Executive Engineer v. Environmental and E.P. Samiti 1993 (1) KLT 800.
90. Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) v. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (writ petition, filed on 17 November 1998) The government decision to lease out 15 oil and gas blocks out of 23 to foreign exploring companies was challenged in the High Court Division of the Supreme Court. It emphasised the need for a co-ordinated policy, guidelines and planning for maximum sustainable utilisation of natural resources. In M. Farooque v. Bangladesh (W.P. No. 948/1997), equitable use of natural resources was also on the agenda when the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers' Association served legal notices against the authorities for their inaction in the illegal encroachment of public space.
91. At least, in two cases, the court had to decide between unplanned development project and ecological protection. Sharif N Ambia v. Bangladesh (W. P. No. 937 of 1995) and Khushi Kabir and Others v. Bangladesh (W.P. No. 3091 of 2000).
92. M. Farooque v. Bangladesh [49 DLR (AD) 1997], p. 1: the legality of an experimental structural project of the huge Flood Action Plan (FAP) in Bangladesh was questioned.
93. Sustainable Development, under section 2 (xiii), means development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations. The preamble to the Act states that the regulation is enacted 'to provide for the protection, conservation, rehabilitation and improvement of the environment, and for prevention and control of pollution and the promotion of sustainable development.' Moreover, there is a provision to create Provincial Sustainable Development Funds to assist projects designed to protect, conserve, rehabilitate and improve the environment. This fund would get grants from federal or provincial governments and would receive donations or other non-obligatory funds from foreign governments, national or international agencies or NGOs (non-governmental organisations).
94. Shehla Zia v. Pakistan (PLD 1994 SC 693 at 710-711). The court, at the same time, took account of the persuasive and binding nature of Rio, the precautionary principle and the right to a healthy environment. The petitioner cited a number of Indian cases where the court was faced with issues related to environment and development.
95. Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 p. 658 paras 11-13
96. AIR 1993 Cal 215 at 227.
97. The Indian Court mentioned the Minors Oposa case [33 ILM 173 (1994)].
98. S. Jagannath v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 87.
99. In W.P. No. 300 of 1995, children sued the government in order to prevent vehicular pollution, since they are the main victims of severe noise and smoke emission. In W.P No. 278 of 1996, a group of children under the age of 10 sued the government to bring back Bangladeshi children used as camel jockeys in the United Arab Emirates and who are kept undernourished and bound by forced labour, and to prevent the further kidnapping and abduction of children from Bangladesh.
100. (1997) 49 DLR (AD) 1.
101. (1997) 49 DLR (AD), Mustafa Kamal J. (p. 16, para. 53). See also South Asian Environmental Law Reporter 13, September 1994, Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp. 113-145. For the judgment of the Minors Oposa Case, see 33 ILM 173 (1994).
102. Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum (1996) 5 SCC 647 at 658, paras 11-13.
103. M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes Matter) v. Union of India and Oths. (1997) 3 SCC 715: 'preventive measures have to be taken keeping in view the carrying capacity of the ecosystems operating in the environmental surroundings under consideration.'
104. (1997) 2 SCC 353.
105. Vellore Citizen's Welfare Forum (1996) 5 SCC 647; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC at 247.
106. S. Jagannath v. Union of India and Others (1997) 2 SCC 87.
107. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others (1997) 2 SCC 411.
108. (1998) 9 SCC 250.
109. A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) SOL case No. 53. The Pollution Control Board of Andhra Pradesh brought the case against an individual. Full report is at www.supremecourtonline.com.
110. The court mentioned Articles 47, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution, the Water Act 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, where both the precautionary and 'polluter-pays' principles and the special concept of onus of proof are implied. Having said that, the court accepted the observation supplied by the Vellore case that the precautionary principle is part of customary international law. It also accepted the view of the ILC report that the consequences of the application of the precautionary principle in any potential situation would be influenced by the circumstances of each case.
111. AIR 1999 J and K 81: The petitioner submitted that the plant in question would be injurious to the health of the residents of the area.
112. The court applied the precautionary principle, maintaining that it is part of the environmental law of the country. In favour of its argument, the court mentioned Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647: AIR 1996 SC 2715; Indian Council of Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1998) AIR SCW 3861; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388.
113. (1999) 2 SCC 718; AIR 1999 SC 812: The case deals with the setting up of an industry for the production of castor oil derivatives.
114. The SC (paras 37 and 39).
115. Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh and Others, W.P. No. 92 of 1996.
116. M. Farooque v. Bangladesh [49 DLR (AD) 1997], p. 1.