Punjab

India

Odisha

Himāchal Pradesh

Haryāna

Puducherry

Jhārkhand

Rājasthān

Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Jammu and Kashmīr

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

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. 



Asghar Leghari, a Pakistani farmer sued the national government for failure to carry out the National Climate Change Policy of 2012 and the Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030). Leghari argued that the government should pursue climate mitigation or adaptation efforts, and that the government’s failure to meet its climate change adaptation targets had resulted in immediate impacts on Pakistan’s water, food, and energy security. Such impacts offended his fundamental right to life.

On September 4, 2015, an appellate court in Pakistan granted the Leghari's claims, describing climate change as a defining challenge of our time. Citing domestic and international legal principles, the court determined that "the delay and lethargy of the State in implementing the Framework offend the fundamental rights of the citizens." The court reasoned that the constitutional rights to life and human dignity (under articles 9 and 14 of the constitution) included the right to a healthy and clean environment. Further, interpretation of these fundamental rights must be guided by (i) the constitutional values of democracy, equality, and social, economic, and political justice; and (ii) international environmental principles of sustainable development, precautionary principle, intergenerational and intragenerational equity, and the doctrine of public trust.

Although the government had formulated a climate change policy and implementation framework, the court concluded there had been no real progress with implementation. To oversee the execution of the policy, the court (i) directed several government ministries to each nominate "a climate change focal person" to help ensure the implementation of the Framework, and to present a list of action points by December 31, 2015; and (ii) created a Climate Change Commission composed of representatives of key ministries, NGOs, and technical experts to monitor the government's progress. On September 14, 2015, the court issued a supplemental decision naming 21 individuals to the Commission and vesting it with various powers. 

On January 25, 2018, the court took note of the submission of a report from the Climate Change Committee noting that during the period from September 2015 to January 2017 66% of the priority actions from the Framework for Implementation Climate Change Policy have been implemented. After dissolving the commission, the court constituted a standing committee, creating an ongoing link between the court and the executive. 

In its final order, the court nominated climate justice as the successor to environmental justice. Environmental justice—said the court—revolved around enforcing national laws, with decisions informed by international legal principles. It focused on shifting or stopping pollutive industries. Climate justice, as the court envisioned it, adopted a human-centered approach. It linked human rights with development. It sought to safeguard the rights of vulnerable peoples and share “the burdens and benefits of climate change and its impacts equitably and fairly.” Climate justice was “informed by science, responds to science and acknowledges the need for equitable stewardship of the world’s resources”. However, realizing that climate justice was challenging, the court acknowledged that polluters often fell beyond national borders and were difficult to identify. Finally, the court outlined its vision for water justice as a human right to access clean water and a sub-concept of climate justice. 

Geography

Punjab

Recent cases