Courts and the right to a healthy environment in Pakistan ^{CEFR B2}

Courts in Pakistan have played a growing role in recognising a constitutional right to a healthy environment. Landmark decisions such as Shehla Zia, which interpreted Article 9, and Asghar Leghari helped build a climate law tradition over two decades. In May 2025 the Abbottabad Bench of the Peshawar High Court issued a stern judgment that blamed the government and the Environmental Protection Agency for failures to protect fragile mountain ecosystems. Parliament reinforced environmental protection by adding Article 9A through the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

At the same time a United Nations Environment Programme report published in October 2025 finds that climate litigation worldwide faces structural, procedural and financial obstacles and depends on strong civil society, a public interest litigation culture and specialised legal expertise. In Pakistan those supports remain weak. Individual cases show the effects: Muhammad (a pseudonym) has pursued a petition against illegal deforestation for nearly a decade and relied on a local NGO to cover high litigation costs. Advocate Abira Ashfaq says shrinking NGO funding and limited sustained support for public interest litigation mean very few environmental claims reach the Environmental Tribunals.

Legal experts note further institutional limits. Rafay Alam says climate law in Pakistan has been produced by a small group of committed individuals. Environmental law is taught at only a handful of universities, often with high fees, so expertise remains concentrated. Judges commonly know statutes such as the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Environmental Protection Act 2014 but often lack sustained exposure to climate science and evolving legal principles. Cases tied to multilateral development bank projects face added hurdles: safeguards from lenders such as the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank can be more detailed than domestic law, but banks focus on project approval and may resist tribunal obstacles. Between 1986 and 2025 Global South cases were under 10 percent of climate litigation, though that share is growing.

Reformers argue that meaningful climate justice will require institutional change including removal of financial and structural barriers, expansion of legal and scientific capacity in the judiciary, and measures to ensure courts can act as an effective constitutional check as climate risks grow.

• Remove financial and structural barriers to litigation.
• Expand legal and scientific capacity in the judiciary.
• Ensure courts can act as an effective constitutional check on climate risks.