Climate Litigation in Pakistan: From Leghari to the 27th Amendment and the Future of Environmental Courts

Introduction

Pakistan stands at a critical juncture in its effort to protect the environment through law. The nation has experienced devastating climate impacts including catastrophic flooding, droughts, and heatwaves. At the same time, Pakistani courts and legislators have begun developing a sophisticated legal framework for addressing environmental harm and holding the state accountable. This development reflects a broader global shift toward climate litigation, though Pakistan's experience differs significantly from litigation patterns in wealthier nations.

The journey from early judicial recognition of environmental rights to the recent constitutional amendments tells a story of persistent advocacy, strategic litigation, and incremental legal reform. Yet significant barriers remain. Environmental tribunals operate unevenly across the country. Procedural delays persist. Legal expertise in environmental matters remains concentrated. Understanding this landscape is essential for lawyers, advocates, and affected communities seeking justice for environmental harm.

The Constitutional Foundation: Article 9 and the Right to Environment

The constitutional basis for environmental protection in Pakistan emerged gradually through judicial interpretation. Article 9 of the Pakistani Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty except in accordance with law. For many years, this provision was read narrowly as protecting only biological life and physical liberty.

The landmark case Shehla Zia v WAPDA changed this interpretation fundamentally. The Supreme Court of Pakistan recognized that the right to life encompasses a right to a healthy environment. This was a transformative moment. The court held that the constitutional protection extends beyond mere survival to include the quality of life necessary for human dignity. Environmental degradation that affects health, clean water, and clean air therefore falls within the scope of Article 9 protection.

This judicial interpretation provided the essential foundation for subsequent climate and environmental litigation. Without this recognition, many cases that followed would have lacked constitutional grounding. The Shehla Zia decision established that environmental protection was not merely a policy matter for executive discretion but a constitutional right requiring judicial enforcement.

Asghar Leghari v Federation of Pakistan: The Landmark Ruling

If Shehla Zia established the constitutional right, the Asghar Leghari case demonstrated that courts would hold the government accountable for climate policy failures. This case represents the most significant climate judgment in Pakistan's legal history and ranks among the most important climate litigation outcomes globally.

The case involved a citizen petition before the Lahore High Court concerning the implementation of Pakistan's climate change policy. The petitioner argued that the government was failing to implement its own National Climate Change Policy and failing to enforce laws designed to address climate change. Rather than dismissing the petition as a matter of policy discretion, the court took the case seriously.

The Lahore High Court's decision was striking in several respects. First, it established that judicial oversight of climate policy implementation is constitutionally appropriate. Courts are not limited to reviewing statutes themselves but may examine whether the executive is actually implementing lawful policies designed to address climate change. Second, the court established a supervisory mechanism. It appointed a Climate Change Commission and ordered regular reporting. The government was required to demonstrate concrete progress in climate mitigation and adaptation.

The judgment also established principles that have guided subsequent litigation. The court held that the government's duties regarding climate protection are enforceable obligations, not aspirational goals. The state cannot claim absolute discretion in matters affecting constitutional rights. And affected citizens have standing to seek judicial redress when they can demonstrate that government action or inaction violates their rights.

This case signaled a shift in Pakistani judicial practice. Courts became willing to supervise government implementation of climate policy. The precedent has enabled subsequent petitions and given confidence to litigants seeking environmental justice through the courts.

Recent Constitutional Developments: The 26th and 27th Amendments

Pakistan's constitutional framework has strengthened significantly through recent amendments. The 26th Constitutional Amendment introduced Article 9A, which explicitly recognizes and protects the right to a healthy environment. This amendment entrenches environmental protection at the constitutional level, moving beyond judicial interpretation to explicit textual recognition.

Article 9A states that every citizen has the right to a healthy and balanced environment and that the state shall protect, conserve and restore the environment. This is a significant hardening of environmental protection. Citizens now possess an explicit constitutional right that cannot be easily modified without further constitutional amendment. The state's duty is clearly articulated in the constitutional text itself.

The 27th Amendment goes further still. It creates a Federal Constitutional Court with jurisdiction over public interest matters. This new institutional development has profound implications for environmental litigation. The Federal Constitutional Court's establishment reflects recognition that constitutional questions of public concern require specialized attention. Environmental cases frequently involve public interest dimensions affecting large populations or future generations.

The creation of this court addresses a longstanding institutional gap. Pakistan's judicial structure previously required public interest cases to proceed through existing courts while competing for docket space with private civil disputes. A dedicated constitutional court can develop expertise in constitutional interpretation and public law matters. For environmental litigation, this means a forum specifically designed to consider constitutional rights and public interest concerns.

These amendments represent the culmination of two decades of advocacy and litigation. They demonstrate that the judiciary's incremental recognition of environmental rights has gradually shifted the political will toward constitutional entrenchment. What courts recognized, legislators have now explicitly protected.

Environmental Protection Tribunals: Structure and Dysfunction

Pakistan's environmental litigation infrastructure includes specialized tribunals established under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act of 1997. The statute provided for Environmental Protection Tribunals to hear cases involving violations of environmental law. The design recognized that environmental cases required specialized judicial expertise distinct from ordinary civil disputes.

Four Environmental Protection Tribunals were established: in Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar, and Quetta. Each tribunal was intended to serve a major geographic region and possess technical expertise in environmental matters. In principle, this structure offers significant advantages. Specialized adjudicators can develop expertise in environmental science, pollution assessment, and ecological principles. Cases move through a dedicated system rather than waiting in general civil court queues. Decisions can be made with environmental knowledge that generalist judges may lack.

In practice, the tribunal system operates unevenly. The Lahore tribunal functions reasonably well and has developed a substantial body of case law. The Karachi tribunal operates but faces capacity constraints. The Peshawar and Quetta tribunals, however, are severely limited. Peshawar's tribunal operates with significant institutional gaps. Quetta's tribunal is essentially non-functional, with key positions vacant and minimal case disposition.

This geographic variation creates a troubling disparity in environmental justice. Citizens in Quetta facing environmental harm have no accessible specialized forum. The vacant posts that plague especially the Quetta tribunal reflect deeper problems with institutional capacity and government commitment to staffing environmental institutions. These are not merely administrative inconveniences. They directly impair access to environmental justice.

The tribunal system, when functioning, can expedite environmental cases and apply specialized expertise. But the system's current state of partial dysfunction means that many environmental claimants must resort to alternative forums, including high courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction or attempting to frame claims as constitutional violations subject to Article 9A protection.

Recent Judicial Interventions (2025-2026)

Recent court decisions show continued judicial willingness to intervene in environmental matters, even where institutional capacity remains constrained. In May 2025, the Abbottabad Bench of the Peshawar High Court issued a decision with significant implications for mountain ecosystem protection. The court criticized both the government and the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to implement measures necessary to protect mountain forests and watersheds in the region.

The Abbottabad decision is notable for its tone and specificity. Rather than accepting government assurances or bureaucratic explanations, the court closely examined whether concrete steps had been taken to prevent deforestation and ecosystem degradation. The judgment reflected frustration with administrative inaction despite legal obligations and judicial directives in prior cases. The court made clear that judicial patience with government inaction was limited.

Separately, the Lahore High Court has issued directions concerning tree felling and forest protection. The court has indicated that it will make unauthorized tree felling a non-bailable offense, meaning arrests can be made and individuals detained without immediate bail eligibility. This judicial initiative reflects recognition that existing penalties have proven insufficient to deter violations. The non-bailable offense designation aims to increase enforcement effectiveness by raising the cost of violation.

These interventions demonstrate that despite institutional constraints, individual benches of high courts continue developing environmental jurisprudence. The courts are experimenting with enforcement mechanisms and supervisory orders designed to compel administrative compliance with environmental law. Success remains incomplete, but the direction is clear: courts will take environmental harm seriously and will use their supervisory powers to hold administrators accountable.

The People's Tribunal and Displacement in Punjab

In February 2026, a People's Tribunal was held in Punjab to examine governmental and institutional responsibility for displacement and environmental damage. The People's Tribunal, distinct from formal courts, serves as a mechanism for public accountability and documenting harms that formal courts may not address. This particular tribunal examined development projects and their environmental and social impacts.

The tribunal made significant findings holding both the government and the World Bank equally responsible for displacement and environmental damage resulting from development initiatives. These findings are notable for their explicit assignment of responsibility to international institutions, not merely domestic actors. The World Bank's role in funding and shaping projects gave it responsibility for their environmental and social consequences.

People's Tribunals do not possess formal legal authority comparable to courts, yet they serve important functions. They create public records of harm. They establish moral and political accountability in ways formal litigation may not. They amplify voices of affected communities. And they sometimes pressure formal legal institutions to take certain issues more seriously. The February 2026 tribunal concerning displacement and environmental damage in Punjab represents exactly this function: making visible the harms associated with development and insisting on accountability.

The tribunal model complements formal climate litigation. While courts operate within procedural constraints and rules of evidence and must articulate decisions in legal terms, tribunals can conduct broader inquiries into systemic harms and responsibility. Together, tribunals and courts create multiple accountability mechanisms.

Barriers to Environmental Justice in Pakistan

Despite legal developments, significant barriers impede environmental justice in Pakistan. Understanding these barriers is essential for any lawyer or advocate seeking to pursue environmental cases.

Limited Legal Expertise

Specialized knowledge of environmental law remains concentrated among a small cadre of lawyers, judges, and advocates. Most Pakistani lawyers receive minimal environmental law training. Judges handling environmental cases may lack familiarity with environmental science and standard environmental practices. This expertise gap means that environmental litigants often struggle to find qualified representation and face adjudicators without environmental knowledge. It also means that evidentiary hearings can become extended affairs while courts absorb basic environmental science that judges in other jurisdictions would already understand.

NGO Funding Decline

Environmental advocacy organizations in Pakistan, like NGOs throughout South Asia, face declining funding. International donors have shifted priorities. Domestic philanthropic support remains modest. This funding challenge directly impacts litigation capacity. Many environmental cases are brought by NGOs working pro bono or with severely limited budgets. When cases require expert witnesses, environmental assessments, or lengthy litigation, underfunded organizations struggle. The decline in NGO funding thus translates into reduced environmental litigation volume and lower case quality.

Judicial Capacity Gaps

High courts, despite their willingness to entertain environmental cases, face heavy dockets and limited time. Environmental cases often require extended hearing schedules. Judicial benches may lack scientific advisors. Supervising implementation of environmental orders requires ongoing judicial attention. These institutional constraints mean that even sympathetic judges may struggle to give environmental cases the extended consideration they require. The establishment of environmental tribunals and now the Federal Constitutional Court addresses this problem, but capacity limitations persist.

Procedural Delays

Environmental harm frequently continues unabated while litigation proceeds. A case challenging deforestation may take years to resolve while the trees are felled. Litigation concerning industrial pollution may drag through the courts while people are exposed to emissions. Pakistan's courts, like many judicial systems in the Global South, face chronic delays. Environmental cases are not exempt. These delays mean that even successful litigation often arrives too late to prevent the harm it addresses.

Practical Guidance for Environmental Cases

Lawyers and advocates considering environmental litigation in Pakistan should understand the current landscape and strategic options available.

Forum Selection

Multiple forums are available for environmental claims. The Environmental Protection Tribunals are the specialized forum if one is functional in your region and has subject matter jurisdiction. These tribunals can move cases more quickly and apply specialized expertise. However, if the relevant tribunal is non-functional or lacks expertise in your specific case type, high court supervisory jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution may be preferable. High courts have demonstrated willingness to entertain environmental cases framed as constitutional violations. More recently, consideration should be given to whether the Federal Constitutional Court, with its explicit public interest jurisdiction, might be the appropriate forum.

Constitutional Framing

Cases framed explicitly in constitutional terms, invoking Article 9's right to life or the newer Article 9A right to a healthy environment, have proven more likely to attract serious judicial attention. Rather than relying solely on statutory environmental law, litigants should explicitly articulate how the environmental harm violates constitutional rights. This framing elevates environmental cases from administrative or statutory matters to constitutional questions, bringing them within the core judicial review function.

Evidence and Expertise

Environmental cases require careful attention to factual development and expert evidence. Assemble evidence demonstrating the environmental harm, its causes, its effects on human health or rights, and available remedies. Expert witnesses are essential. These may include environmental scientists, public health professionals, or engineers depending on the case. Even underfunded cases should prioritize expert evidence, as courts without environmental backgrounds need this guidance.

Strategic Use of Multiple Mechanisms

Formal litigation need not be the only mechanism. Consider paralleling formal litigation with People's Tribunal processes, media engagement, and administrative advocacy. These complementary strategies can build pressure for compliance while formal litigation proceeds. Administrative mechanisms, though slow, can sometimes move parallel to litigation and occasionally deliver remedies faster.

Focus on Accountability, Not Just Injunctive Relief

In addition to seeking immediate injunctive relief preventing environmental harm, seek mechanisms for ongoing accountability. Orders directing government agencies to report on implementation and compliance, as the Leghari case established, can be more effective than one-time injunctions. Courts increasingly are willing to exercise supervisory jurisdiction directing implementation of climate and environmental policy, so litigants should request such measures.

Conclusion

Pakistan's approach to climate litigation has evolved significantly over two decades. The judiciary recognized and enforced a constitutional right to a healthy environment before legislatures explicitly entrenched it. Courts held the government accountable for climate policy failures even without specialized forums. And recently, constitutional amendments have explicitly protected environmental rights and created specialized institutions for addressing constitutional questions affecting the public.

This trajectory demonstrates both progress and persistent challenge. The legal framework has strengthened. Yet implementation remains uneven. Environmental tribunals function unevenly. Expertise is limited. Funding for environmental advocacy is declining. And procedural delays mean that justice often arrives too late to prevent environmental harm.

The creation of the Federal Constitutional Court and the explicit constitutional protection of environmental rights in Article 9A offer significant promise. These developments suggest that environmental litigation will become more accessible and more effective. But much depends on whether the new Federal Constitutional Court proves capable and willing to exercise robust jurisdiction over environmental cases. It depends on whether environmental tribunals are properly staffed and resourced. It depends on whether the judicial enthusiasm demonstrated in cases like Leghari can be sustained and expanded.

For lawyers and advocates, the current moment offers opportunity. The legal foundation is stronger. The constitutional provisions are explicit. Precedents supporting environmental claims are accumulating. Strategic litigation can influence policy. Yet the barriers remain real. Success requires careful case selection, rigorous factual and expert development, and sometimes the persistence necessary to advance novel environmental claims through skeptical administrative systems.

Pakistan's experience also speaks to a broader global pattern. Climate litigation in the Global South, despite its urgency, remains underfunded and under-resourced. The legal innovations developed in Pakistan offer lessons for other developing nations facing climate impacts. But realizing these innovations' full potential requires sustained commitment from courts, adequate funding for environmental advocates, development of specialized legal expertise, and the political will to make environmental protection more than rhetoric.

Sources and Further Reading

• Global Voices. "Pakistan Seeks Justice for Environmental Harm Through Climate Litigation," January 2026. https://globalvoices.org/2026/01/11/pakistan-seeks-justice-for-environmental-harm-through-climate-litigation/
• OpenGlobalRights. "Courts in Pakistan Are Facilitating Climate Dialogue Between State and Citizens." https://www.openglobalrights.org/courts-in-pakistan-are-facilitating-climate-dialogue-between-state-and-citizens/
• People's Dispatch. "People's Tribunal in Pakistan Holds Government and the World Bank Equally Responsible for Displacement and Environmental Damage," February 2026. https://peoplesdispatch.org/2026/02/03/peoples-tribunal-in-pakistan-holds-government-and-the-world-bank-equally-responsible-for-displacement-and-environmental-damage/
• Climate Case Chart. "Ashgar Leghari v Federation of Pakistan." https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/ashgar-leghari-v-federation-of-pakistan/