Punjab

India

Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Madhya Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh

Mizoram

Arunāchal Pradesh

Nāgāland

Assam

Odisha

Bihār

Chhattīsgarh

Puducherry

Chandīgarh

Rājasthān

Dādra and Nagar Haveli and Damān and Diu

Sikkim

Delhi

Tamil Nādu

Tripura

Gujarāt

Telangāna

Himāchal Pradesh

Uttarākhand

Haryāna

Uttar Pradesh

Jhārkhand

West Bengal

Jammu and Kashmīr

Karnātaka

Kerala

Ladākh

Lakshadweep

Mahārāshtra

Meghālaya

Manipur

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

On October 10, 2019, the Lahore High Court considered a brick-kiln operator's challenge to police interference with the excavation and transport of soil. The Court declined to resolve the petitioner's fact-dependent individual claim but used the proceeding to address unregulated topsoil removal by the brick industry. It held that soil falls within the public trust doctrine because it supports plant growth, filters water, maintains atmospheric-gas balance, stores carbon, and sustains ecosystems. 

Relying in part on the IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land and Asghar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan, the Court found that removal of topsoil contributes to desertification, lower agricultural yields, food insecurity, environmental degradation, and climate change. 

The Court directed the Government of Punjab to begin, within six months, administrative and legislative measures to regulate brick manufacturing and the use and conservation of soil, in consultation with affected agencies and industry stakeholders.

In an order dated September 9, 2021, the Lahore High Court continued its supervision of consolidated petitions concerning water management, pollution, and environmental degradation in Punjab. The Court stated that Article 9's right to life extends to life free from environmental pollution and that the climate crisis places that right in serious jeopardy. It linked Article 9 with Articles 3 and 38 to develop constitutional principles of climate justice and water justice, and held that Article 155's intergovernmental water-dispute mechanism does not displace the High Court's Article 199 jurisdiction.

The Court described the proceeding as an exercise of continuing supervisory jurisdiction and reviewed measures implemented through the Water and Environment Commission, including water metering, restoration of irrigation channels, restrictions on polythene bags, cleaner brick-kiln technology and
environmental fines. It relied on D.G. Khan Cement Co. v. Government of Punjab and cited State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation. The docket has not yet been finally disposed of.

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.


Geography

Punjab

Recent cases