Abstract

Both Australia and Bangladesh have judicial systems that allow for the judicial review of government decisions on environmental issues. The fundamental distinction between the jurisdictions is that in Australia, statutes confer upon courts the power of judicial review to justify executive actions relating to environment. Conversely, no statute proffers the power of judicial review upon the Bangladeshi courts to validate government decisions pertaining to environment. Courts in both countries primarily hinge upon the standing rules that control who is permitted to present an application before courts when it comes to the practice of the power of judicial review, stressing that the aggrieved person should have locus standi. This study analyzes the way to understand how courts in both jurisdictions expand standing rules in justifying executive decision on environmental issues contributing to advance public interest rather than incite lawfare. The central hypothesis of this study is that the liberal interpretation of standing rules serves the purpose of providing systematic and crucial information to the government aims to hold decision-makers accountable for making judgments on matters of national environmental significance. Ultimately, this safeguards public interest instead of triggering lawfare.