The High Court on Sunday issued a ruling questioning the government’s decision to impose travel and location restrictions on tourists and citizens visiting Saint Martin’s Island.
A bench comprising Justice Farah Mahbub and Justice Debashish Roy Chowdhury issued the ruling during the preliminary hearing of a writ petition challenging the government’s October 28 directive aimed at controlling tourism on the ecologically vulnerable island.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued a memorandum on October 28, detailing measures to address environmental degradation and control uncontrolled tourism on the island.
These included a limit of 2,000 tourists per day on average, a ban on overnight stays on the island during December and January, a restriction on lights, noise, and barbeque parties on the beach at night, and navigational approval for boats requiring clearance from the Ministry of Environment.
ANM Helal Uddin, president of the Cox’s Bazar Citizens’ Forum, filed the writ on November 21 challenging the validity of the memorandum.
During the hearing, petitioner’s lawyers Md Amir Hossain and Md Ujjal Hossain argued that the directive contradicted Article 36 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of movement.
They contended that restrictions on citizens’ movement could only be imposed through proper legal mechanisms, and an administrative memorandum did not qualify as law.
In response, the High Court questioned whether the ministry’s directive exceeded its legal authority and issued a ruling asking why the October 28 decision should not be declared unlawful.
The court directed the environment secretary, the director general of the Department of Environment, the deputy commissioner of Cox's Bazar, and the superintendent of police to respond to the ruling within four weeks.
Deputy Attorney General Tanim Khan represented the state during the hearing.
Speaking to journalists, lawyer Ujjal Hossain said: “The restriction on movement as outlined in the environment ministry’s memo is not rooted in legislation, as required by the Constitution. The writ was filed based on these legal arguments, leading to the court’s ruling on the matter.”
The court’s decision has sparked debate over balancing constitutional freedoms with the urgent need to protect one of the country’s most delicate ecosystems.
