The Double Diversion: Structural Intent and Constitutional Tort in Bangladesh Environmental Law

The Buriganga is not dying by accident; it is being liquidated by design through a legal framework that treats systemic destruction as a series of non-intentional externalities, costs imposed on third parties by economic actors who bear none of them personally. This article dissects the Pollution Economy of Bangladesh, arguing that the traditional focus on subjective intent in tort law and the administrative bottlenecks of the Environment Conservation Act 1995 function as a sophisticated shield for industrial capital. Through a critical lens of the Double Diversion, the simultaneous physical appropriation of common environmental resources and the discursive displacement of legal accountability, the research identifies a Compliance-Harm Paradox where industries destroy ecosystems while maintaining technical legality. It finds that the evisceration of private law and the gatekeeper role of the Department of Environment have de-politicised environmental rights. Article 18A of the Constitution, inserted by the Fifteenth Amendment in 2011, establishes a directive principle for environmental protection but remains non-justiciable in isolation; its effective enforcement requires integration with the right to life under Articles 31 and 32. Consequently, this article proposes a transition toward Structural Intent and a Constitutional Ecological Tort. By removing administrative gatekeepers and adopting a Reverse Onus clause with defined parameters, the law can shift from a regime of managed accidents to one of absolute structural responsibility.