Pakistan’s Climate Justice Journey: A Deeper Look
Muhammad, a villager, is frustrated. He’s been fighting illegal deforestation in court for nearly a decade. “They told me not to do it,” he says during a phone call. “I just want them to rule in my lifetime.” His story reflects a broader struggle in Pakistan, where climate issues are increasingly hitting home.
In recent years, Pakistan’s courts have taken steps to address environmental concerns. This journey began with the historic Shehla Zia case, where the Supreme Court recognized the right to a healthy environment under the Constitution. This was reinforced by the Leghari case, emphasizing the environment’s critical role in constitutional rights.
Last May, the Peshawar High Court issued a strong judgment, critiquing government failures to protect mountain ecosystems. This ruling highlighted a shift from just focusing on pollution to broader environmental conservation.
However, the courts aren’t silver bullets for climate justice. Muhammad’s case sheds light on the challenges that persist. A report from the United Nations Environment Programme notes that climate litigation often faces numerous barriers, including financial constraints and a lack of strong civil society support. Abira Ashfaq, an advocate, points out that shrinking funding for NGOs means many environmental cases never make it to court.
Even when cases do reach court, they can slow down significantly. Muhammad, with the help of a local NGO, was able to pursue his case, but he fears the limited resources of these organizations may not withstand the powerful interests against environmental protection.
The legal field itself shows gaps. Rafay Alam, an environmental lawyer, explains that climate law expertise is confined to a small group of practitioners. Environmental law isn’t widely taught, limiting the number of lawyers willing to take on climate cases. This lack of trained professionals impacts the quality of decisions made in Environmental Tribunals, where judges may understand the laws but lack deep knowledge of climate science.
Adding to this, projects funded by multilateral development banks often sidestep the courts. Ashfaq notes that while these banks might have higher environmental standards, they prioritize speed in project approval over thorough regulatory checks. This weakens the courts’ ability to enforce meaningful climate protection.
Climate litigation is gaining traction worldwide. Between 1986 and 2025, cases from the Global South were underrepresented, making up less than 10% of all climate litigation. Yet, this share is growing, and for Pakistan—a country severely affected by climate change—the need for a responsive judiciary is growing more urgent.
The existing legal framework focuses on disputes between identifiable parties. Alam asks a crucial question: “What can a court of law do about climate change?” This question highlights the inadequacy of the current judicial system to address systemic climate issues.
Recent changes, like the 27th Amendment, have introduced a Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) to handle public interest matters. Critics argue this shift dilutes the checks and balances essential for justice. If landmark cases were brought before the FCC today, the outcomes could be starkly different.
To effectively tackle climate change, Pakistan’s judiciary needs reform. Courts must address structural and financial barriers to justice, empowering communities affected by environmental harm. Without such changes, the quest for climate justice in Pakistan will remain a difficult journey.
For more insights on climate-related judicial matters, you can check out resources from the United Nations Environment Programme.
Source link
byline-external,Deep Dives
