Punjab

India

Haryāna

Puducherry

Jhārkhand

Rājasthān

Jammu and Kashmīr

Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Sikkim

Karnātaka

Andhra Pradesh

Tamil Nādu

Kerala

Arunāchal Pradesh

Tripura

Ladākh

Assam

Telangāna

Lakshadweep

Bihār

Uttarākhand

Mahārāshtra

Chhattīsgarh

Uttar Pradesh

Meghālaya

Chandīgarh

West Bengal

Manipur

Dādra and Nagar Haveli and Damān and Diu

Madhya Pradesh

Delhi

Mizoram

Nāgāland

Gujarāt

Odisha

Himāchal Pradesh

A coalition of women filed a constitutional petition on their behalf and on behalf of future generations against the Federation of Pakistan. They allege that the federal government’s inaction on climate change violated their fundamental rights including the right to a clean and healthy environment and a climate capable of sustaining human life, (a right which was previously recognized in Asghar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 CLD 424). They further argue that since climate change has a disproportionate impact on women, the government’s climate inaction violates plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection under the law and no discrimination on the basis of sex.  

Plaintiffs explain that the government specifically has failed to prioritize clean energy projects, even though solar and wind energy has become cheaper than conventional energy, and has not approved any clean energy projects between December 2017 and the filing of the suit. Plaintiffs argue this failure to abate greenhouse gas emissions violates the “clear mandate of the RE Policy 2006, the firm commitments made by the State of Pakistan pursuant to the Paris Agreement and the urgent threat of climate change. Plaintiffs further argue these violations amount to violations of constitutional rights. They state that the superior courts of Pakistan have held that “Fundamental Rights like the right to life and security of person under Articles 4 and 9 [of the constitution] include the right to a healthy and clean environment,” and have also “read” “the right to human dignity under Article 14” “with the constitutional principles of democracy, equality, social, economic and political justice” “including within their ambit the international environmental principles of sustainable development, precautionary principle, environmental impact assessment, inter and intra‑generational equity and public trust doctrine.”

Emissions reductions in the energy sector were critical, according to the petitioners, as the sector was responsible for 47% of Pakistan’s total emissions. In Pakistan’s 2016 NDC, the government committed to a 20% reduction of its 2030 projected GHG emissions. Despite this, petitioners maintained that respondents had neither prioritized clean energy projects nor approved a renewable energy project since December 2017. The petitioners alleged that this failure betrayed the government’s “stated commitment under the Paris Agreement to encourage and foster the development of renewable energy sources”. Khan et al. also argued that the respondents violated the public trust doctrine and principle of intergenerational equity, as well as the concept of climate justice developed in Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan. The petitioners sought orders declaring that the government must support renewable energy projects and enforce the Paris Agreement in letter and spirit. 

Members of civil society filed suit against Pakistan, (impleading several departments including the Planning and Development Department, Punjab Environmental Protection Department, and Housing & Urban Development Department), for failure to plant, protect, manage, preserve, and conserve the trees and forests in Punjab in violation of statutory obligations and petitioners’ constitutional rights. Petitioners requested a writ of mandamus under Article 199 of Pakistan’s Constitution and alleged the government’s conduct violated their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 9 (right of life liberty), Article 14 (right of dignity), Article 26 (right of access to public places of entertainment) and Article 38(b) (provision of available leisure places) of the Constitution. Petitioners asked the court, inter alia, to appraise the government’s implementation of relevant policies to increase forest cover; to implement the Forest Act, 1927 (the “Forest Act”) and the Punjab Plantation and Maintenance of Trees Act, 1974 (the “Trees Act”) by planting trees; to present a timeline for implementation, and to initiate appropriate proceedings against officers who failed to discharge their duties.

The High Court of Lahore allowed the writ of mandamus, ordering the government to fulfill their obligations under the law “to safely manage, conserve, sustain, maintain, protect and grow forests and plant trees in urban cities.” The court summarized a variety of requirements under natural resource, development, local government, and international law to establish the government’s obligations to protect the forest including the “Forest Act” and “Trees Act.” It directed the government to take its legal obligations seriously in implementing related policies, including the National Climate Change Policy, 2012, the National Forest Policy, 2015, the Forest Policy Statement, 1999 and Punjab Environment Policy, 2015. It noted that if the government had properly fulfilled its legal obligations “in letter and spirit” “the forest of Pakistan could have been saved [from] further depletion and deforestation.” In its discussion of relevant law, the court touched on the right to a healthy environment, the precautionary principle, and the public trust doctrine. Specifically, in regard to climate change, the court summarized the negative impacts of climate change on forests and obligations under the National Climate Change Policy, 2012 to protect biodiversity and prevent wetland degradation by reducing deforestation.

At the time of the decision, the involved government bodies had already prepared an Urban Trees Plantation Policy under direction of the court resulting in “massive” plantings across the Punjab area. In addition to instructions to implement the laws, the court order included instructions to the government bodies to consider revising requirements and penalties under the Trees Act, publish annual reports on expansion of the forest area, impose penalties against delinquent officers, and to issue directions to the housing societies and authorities to support the planting of trees in the green belt and issue penalties for cutting those trees down.


Rabab Ali, a 7-year-old girl who lives in Karachi, is the named petitioner in a challenge to various actions and inactions on the part of Pakistan’s federal government and on the part of the Province of Sindh (where Karachi is located). The Petition, filed directly with the country’s Supreme Court, alleges violations of constitutionally protected fundamental rights, of the Public Trust Doctrine as it relates to Pakistan’s atmosphere and climate, and of rights relating to the environmental degradation expected to result from burning coal to generate electricity. In support of these allegations, it highlights that Pakistan’s government has acknowledged the reality and consequences of climate change with the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy of 2013. 

Ali maintained that exploiting the coalfields would further destabilize the climate system and infringe citizens’ constitutional rights to life, liberty, dignity, information, equal protection before the law, among others. The right to life, she argued, included an “inalienable right to a stable climate system” void of dangerous levels of CO2. Ali noted that Pakistan committed to and was bound by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. While she acknowledged that Pakistan could not solve climate change alone, she said that it must do its fair share to keep atmospheric CO2 concentrations within the safe level. 

While the Petition alleges a variety of specific acts or omissions by Pakistan’s government, its chief focus is on the approval of a plan to develop coal fields located in the Thar desert region, located in the southeast corner of the country. That development is anticipated to increase Pakistani coal production from 4.5 to 60 million metric tons per year, with a commensurate increase in greenhouse gas emissions. The plaintiff argued that exploitation of the Thar coalfields would release approximately 327 billion tons of CO2, more than 1,000 times Pakistan’s previous estimate for annual GHG emissions. Coal mining in the Thar Desert would also worsen air pollution, impact water quality.  It is also expected to displace residents in that region, and to lead to environmental degradation both directly (through water quality impacts) and indirectly (through air quality impacts from coal combustion). She claimed that thousands of Thari people were driven from their land in violation of their right to property, dignity, and equal protection before the law. The petition argued that Pakistan could potentially use renewable energy to power all of its energy needs, including in the transport, industrial, and agriculture sectors. Ali also sought protection for mangroves for sequestering carbon and protecting against sea level rise. As the Petition notes, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is the source of investments of $1.2 billion for both coal field development and for the development of multiple coal-fired power plants in Pakistan. 



Punjab

Recent cases