Ashgar Leghari v Federation of Pakistan

The petitioner, an agriculturist and citizen of Pakistan, filed public interest litigation challenging the inaction, delay and lack of seriousness by the Federal Government and Government of Punjab in addressing climate change vulnerabilities. Despite the National Climate Change Policy 2012 and Framework for Implementation of Climate Change Policy (2014-2030), there was no progress on the ground. The Framework contained 734 action points, of which 232 were priority items to be completed by 2016. The Federal Ministry for Climate Change was established in 2015, held its first meeting in April 2015, and issued reminders to various departments in May and June 2015. The Joint Secretary Climate Change frankly admitted that responses from various departments had not been positive. Pakistan faces serious threats to water, food and energy security due to climate change, manifesting in heavy floods and droughts.

• Whether the State's delay and inaction in implementing climate change adaptation measures violates fundamental rights under the Constitution of Pakistan
• Whether the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution includes the right to a healthy and clean environment in the context of climate change
• Whether climate change impacts on water and food security constitute violations of fundamental rights
• What legal framework and enforcement mechanisms are required to ensure implementation of climate change policies
• Whether the Court has jurisdiction to monitor and direct government action on climate change through public interest litigation

The Court directed: (i) All concerned Ministries, Departments and Authorities to nominate a Climate Change Focal Person within their institution to work with Ministry of Climate Change and assist the Court, with official notification to be placed on record; (ii) The above entities to present a list of adaptation action points from priority items of the Framework achievable by 31st December 2015; (iii) Constitution of a Climate Change Commission (CCC) comprising representatives of key ministries/departments, NGOs and technical experts, with proposed names and terms of reference to be placed on record; (iv) Additional Secretaries of mentioned Ministries and Departments to appear in person with Focal Persons on next hearing; (v) Notices to be issued to specified environmental organizations and officials including CEO of LEAD Pakistan, Director General of WWF Lahore, DG Environment Ministry of Climate Change, and Project Director Small Dams Organization. The Court also directed the Establishment Division to reconsider the transfer of the Joint Secretary Climate Change given his specialized expertise. Matter adjourned to 14.09.2015.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) The fundamental right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan includes the right to a healthy and clean environment, which encompasses protection from climate change impacts; (2) The right to human dignity under Article 14, read with constitutional principles of democracy, equality, and social, economic and political justice, includes within their ambit international environmental principles of sustainable development, precautionary principle, environmental impact assessment, inter and intra-generational equity and public trust doctrine; (3) Delay and inaction by the State in implementing climate change adaptation measures constitutes a violation of fundamental rights that can be enforced through public interest litigation; (4) Articles 9, 14, 23 and 19A read with constitutional values of political, economic and social justice provide the judicial toolkit to address and monitor government response to climate change; (5) Courts have jurisdiction to enforce climate change policies and monitor their implementation to protect fundamental rights of citizens; (6) Climate change constitutes a threat to water and food security which offends the fundamental right to life; (7) Environmental jurisprudence must evolve from Environmental Justice to Climate Change Justice to address urgent climate imperatives.

The Court made several significant obiter observations: (1) Climate change is a defining challenge of our time that has led to dramatic alterations in the planet's climate system; (2) For Pakistan, climatic variations have primarily resulted in heavy floods and droughts; (3) Climate change raises serious concerns regarding water and food security; (4) Climate justice is particularly important for vulnerable and weak segments of society who are unable to approach courts; (5) Environment and its protection has taken center stage in the scheme of constitutional rights; (6) Pakistan is not a major contributor to global warming but is a victim of climate change requiring immediate remedial adaptation measures to cope with disruptive climatic patterns; (7) The effects of climate change can be addressed through mitigation or adaptation; (8) For Pakistan, adaptation is more relevant than mitigation given its status as a victim rather than major contributor to climate change; (9) More awareness and sensitization is required among government departments regarding climate change; (10) The transfer of civil servants who have acquired special expertise in climate change can weaken institutional momentum and have serious bearing on fundamental rights of people. These observations provide important context for understanding climate change as a constitutional and human rights issue in Pakistan.

This is a landmark case in climate change jurisprudence, being one of the first cases globally where a court recognized climate change as a justiciable issue involving fundamental constitutional rights. The judgment is significant for: (1) Establishing that climate change impacts constitute violations of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and human dignity; (2) Developing the concept of 'Climate Change Justice' as an evolution of environmental justice; (3) Recognizing that constitutional rights incorporate international environmental principles including sustainable development, precautionary principle, inter and intra-generational equity, and public trust doctrine; (4) Establishing judicial monitoring mechanisms for government climate change policies through Climate Change Focal Persons and a Climate Change Commission; (5) Affirming the role of courts in enforcing climate action through public interest litigation; (6) Recognizing climate change as a threat to water and food security; (7) Emphasizing state accountability for climate adaptation measures. The case has been cited internationally as a pioneering example of rights-based climate litigation and has influenced climate cases in other jurisdictions. It represents a significant development in using constitutional litigation to enforce climate action and holds the state accountable for protecting citizens from climate change impacts.