A country under siege, not by war or strife, but by nature itself. Pakistan, ranked as the fifth most vulnerable country to climate change, stands on the frontline of climate catastrophe: glaciers are melting at an unprecedented rate, cities are choking in thick blankets of smog, and monsoons wreak havoc in urban and rural areas across the country.

Warnings of these disasters were long apparent. Yet, the legislative and executive bodies chose a different path — one paved with neglect, broken promises, and self-serving agendas. Laws meant to shield the nation from environmental damage were ignored or twisted, and the necessary action was shelved in the name of profit.

As nature’s fury surged, the patience of the people wore thin. Tired of waiting for the legislative and administrative branches to take action, people turned to the judiciary seeking accountability and action.

Speaking about the role of judiciary in addressing these issues, Dr Parvez Hassan, senior advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan said: “Judges mostly step in to solve problems that the governments and society have failed to resolve; it is the apathy in government responses to critical issues facing the common man that, in many cases, facilitated the ‘activism’ of our judiciary.”

Pakistan’s legal framework for environmental protection began with the Environmental Protection Act of 1997, evolved into the Climate Change Act of 2017 and ultimately led to the introduction of Article 9A in the Constitution, which grants every citizen the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.

On the global front, Pakistan has aligned with significant frameworks such as the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). These agreements emphasise environmental standards, encourage sustainable practices, and offer financial support to developing countries, especially through climate finance initiatives such as the Green Climate Fund. Pakistan’s commitment to these international accords underlines its role in the global environmental effort.

Despite these safeguards, green spaces across the country have continued to be destroyed or encroached upon by authorities, often with impunity. Climate change laws have rarely been honoured in spirit or action.

But where the executive branches fell silent, the judiciary rose to defend what was left — establishing commissions to address these issues on policy level, enshrining the right to clean and healthy environment and saving the green spaces from encroachers. That is not to say, however, that the courts have been entirely successful either — with little to no implementation on the part of the executive, even court orders have failed to produce much results thus far.

It’s a battle that began three decades ago, and is still far from over. Here’s how Pakistan’s courts have been laying down landmark “green precedents,” one ruling at a time, in a bid to protect the nation’s future. This is by no means an exhaustive list, nor does it cover every single litigation relating to the environment that has reached Pakistani courts. It simply provides an overview of the kinds of cases brought to the courts and how the judiciary has weighed in on some of these issues in recent years.

Shehla Zia vs Wapda

In 1994, a group of residents in Islamabad approached the Supreme Court with a Public Interest Litigation case — a class action constitutional law litigation through which individuals can sue to address an issue relating to the ‘public interest’ and can identify a class being affected by the issues raised.

The petitioners pleaded that the construction of a proposed electricity grid station by the Water and Power Development Authority (Wapda) should be stopped. They said that the authority had carried out inadequate assessments of the effects of the proposed grid station on human health and environment. The residents were also concerned about harm to the city’s much-prized green belt regulations due to construction of the grid.

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court agreed, declaring that high-voltage transmission lines in residential areas posed a health risk to citizens and should be relocated.

Asghar Leghari vs Federation of Pakistan

In 2015, an agriculturist and member of the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA), Asghar Leghari sued the federal government over its failure to implement the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030).

Legari pleaded to the court that the government’s failure to meet its climate change adaptation targets had impacted Pakistan’s water, food, and energy security. Quoting from the policy, the farmer stated that climate change threats had led to “major survival concerns for Pakistan, particularly in relation to the country’s water security, food security and energy security”.

Here, the Lahore High court (LHC) set a legal precedent — both at home and internationally — by ordering the government to enforce its own climate change policy and establishing a climate change commission to oversee the process. From September 2015 to January 2018, the Climate Change Commission acted, in the court’s own words, as ’the driving force in sensitising the [federal and provincial] governments and other stakeholders regarding gravity and importance of climate change.

The commission worked with the provincial government to draft water policy and climate change policy. The court kept the case as a rolling mandamus — even in the last order which was passed in January 2018, the court consigned the matter to the record instead of closing it as a finally adjudicated matter.

The court set up a six member standing committee that can approach the court “for appropriate orders for enforcement of the fundamental rights of the people in the context of climate change, if and when required”.

Rabab Ali vs Federation of Pakistan

In 2016, a seven-year-old girl, Rabab Ali, sued the government for violation of her and her generation’s right to a healthy life. She and her father, an environmental lawyer, argued in court that exploiting lignite coal in Sindh’s Tharparkar district would significantly raise Pakistan’s carbon dioxide emissions, pollute the air, and pose a catastrophic threat to future generations while also contributing to global warming.

The plaintiff argued that exploitation of the Thar coalfields would release approximately 327 billion tonnes of CO2, more than 1,000 times Pakistan’s previous estimate for annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Ali argued that Pakistan could potentially use renewable energy to power all of its energy needs, including in the transport, industrial, and agriculture sectors.

The case is still pending before the SC.

Sheikh Asim Farooq vs Federation of Pakistan

In 2019, members of civil society filed a suit against the Federation of Pakistan for failure to plant, protect, manage, preserve and conserve the trees and forests in Punjab. The petitioners pleaded that this was a violation of statutory obligations and petitioners’ constitutional rights.

The petitioners requested a judicial order to compel the authorities to give a timeline for the implementation of Forest Act,1927 and the Punjab Plantation and Maintenance of Trees Act, 1974, plant trees and hold proceedings against officers who failed to discharge their duties.

The LHC allowed the writ of mandamus, ordering the government to fulfill its obligations under the law “to safely manage, conserve, sustain, maintain, protect and grow forests and plant trees in urban cities.”

In the judgement penned by Justice Jawad Hassan, the court directed the government to take its legal obligations seriously in implementing policies such as the National Climate Change Policy, 2012, the National Forest Policy, 2015, the Forest Policy Statement, 1999 and Punjab Environment Policy, 2015.

Collector of Customs vs Waseef Ullah and others

The collector of customs petitioned the Supreme Court that the Peshawar High Court in its order (dated: December 1, 2021) had wrongfully allowed the respondents to be exempted from taxation on import of Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs).

Here, the supreme court upheld the decision of Peshawar High Court. In the 2022 verdict, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar highlighted the obligations of Pakistan with various international conventions on climate change and its own legal infrastructure in the Pakistan Climate Change Act, 2017 and Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, and held that mere legislation without effective implementation was useless and ineffective. It stressed on the use of HEVs to cater to climate change.

The verdict held that “the technology of HEVs is well-accepted and internationally acclaimed technology in the modern world. The proper and futuristic use of this technology will progress our country, and will not only improve and recuperate the atmosphere and ecosystem, but also alleviate destructive facets of climate change by lessening smoke emissions.”

Public Interest Law Association of Pakistan vs Environmental Protection Agency

In 2022, a writ petition was filed by the Public Interest Law Association of Pakistan (PILAP) against the Environmental Protection Agency. The petitioners challenged the Ravi riverfront project undertaken by the Ravi Urban Development Authority (Ruda) on numerous grounds including its impact on socio-economic factors and the environment.

Ahmad Rafay Alam, Member Executive Committee of PILAP, wrote in a Dawn report: “Ruda describes the Ravi project as in alignment with the government’s ‘clean and green’ objectives, and the key to securing water and food for all of Pakistan. Yet, it is hard to imagine how paving over nearly 80,000 acres of rich farmland can be conceived of as ecologically sustainable or socially responsible.”

Speaking to Dawn.com, Alam said: “The LHC put a stop a stop to the project, however, it didn’t last long as the Government of Punjab filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.”

Alam said granting the appeal, the SC suspended the order in 2022 and said that Ruda cannot acquire any more land than it already has but could work on the one taken over previously.

He added that ever since, the work has been going on with destruction of prime agricultural land on both sides of the river.

Province of Sindh vs Sartaj Hyder

In 2023, Sindh’s Provincial Disaster Mana­g­e­ment Authority (PDMA) director general and other government departm­e­nts moved the SC against a Sindh High Court order that directed the constitution of citizens committees headed by civil judges to oversee the relief work following the devastating 2022 floods.

Justice Aisha Malik penned the judgement, stating that the committees would not have direct control or directive power over operations. Instead, they would engage with the processes established by the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) to enhance their effectiveness and inclusivity.

The order also emphasised the inclusion of women in these committees, recognising their heightened vulnerability to natural disasters.

In a separate note, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, part of the three-judge bench hearing this case, acknowledged the vulnerability of Pakistan to climate change and observed that devastation caused by recent floods in 2022 is distressing proof. He said that the National Disaster Management Plan, 2012, does refer to increase in climate related natural disasters but falls short of devising any meaningful steps to suggest adaptation measures and guard against climate change.

Justice Shah observed that it was high time to develop a mechanism to ensure global funds were invested in building national climate resilience so that climate induced disasters could be minimised.

Header image created with generative AI