## Facts

- Civil-society petitioners filed a constitutional writ petition alleging large-scale deforestation in Pakistan, particularly Punjab, and related public-health harms.
- Petitioners asserted that government bodies failed to enforce and implement existing forestry and climate instruments, including the Forest Act 1927, Punjab Plantation and Maintenance of Trees Act 1974, and national forest/climate policies.
- Petitioners claimed governmental inaction impaired constitutional rights, including the right to life (as including a clean and healthy environment), dignity, and access to public leisure and recreation.
- The case proceeded as public-interest litigation; the court held multiple hearings over 2018–2019 before issuing a detailed judgment.
- Petitioners sought mandamus compelling implementation of laws and policies, reforestation measures, and accountability for neglect of legal duties.

## Issues

1. Whether federal and provincial authorities breached statutory and constitutional duties by failing to prevent deforestation and to implement forestry and climate policies.
2. Whether state inaction regarding forests and urban tree cover infringed fundamental rights, including the right to life as encompassing a clean and healthy environment.
3. Whether the court could grant structural relief through continuing mandamus to supervise long-term compliance.
4. Whether international environmental law principles could guide interpretation and enforcement of domestic constitutional and statutory obligations.

## Decision

- The court held that responsible government departments failed to implement the applicable legal and policy framework and that this failure contributed materially to ongoing deforestation.
- The court held that the right to life includes a right to a clean and healthy environment and found the petitioners’ fundamental rights were infringed by governmental inaction.
- The court granted mandamus directing federal and provincial entities and related agencies to conserve, protect, maintain, and grow forests and to expand tree planting, including in urban areas.
- The court directed implementation of forestry statutes and relevant policies “in letter and spirit,” and required steps to improve compliance mechanisms and accountability.
- The court required development of an urban tree plantation policy to address gaps where existing instruments focused primarily on forest land rather than cities.
- The court applied continuing mandamus, retained jurisdiction, and required periodic reporting to enable ongoing judicial supervision of implementation.

## Legal Principles

- Fundamental rights protections extend to environmental conditions where environmental degradation threatens life, health, and human dignity; the right to life includes a right to a clean and healthy environment.
- The state, as trustee of natural resources, bears enforceable duties to protect and manage forests for present and future generations under the public trust doctrine.
- Courts may issue continuing mandamus in public-interest matters where effective relief requires sustained, monitored implementation over time rather than a single final order.
- Statutory and policy commitments concerning environmental protection are judicially enforceable when non-implementation defeats constitutional rights and public duties.
- International environmental law principles recognized in domestic jurisprudence—including sustainable development, precaution, inter- and intra-generational equity, polluter pays, and in dubio pro natura—may inform interpretation of constitutional and statutory obligations.

## Conclusion

The court found that governmental non-implementation of forestry laws and policies contributed to severe deforestation and violated fundamental rights, then issued a continuing mandamus requiring concrete reforestation and urban tree-planting measures, policy development, accountability, and ongoing court-monitored compliance.


Sheikh Asim Farooq v. Fed’n of Pak., W.P. No. 192069 of 2018 (Lah. High Ct. Aug. 30, 2019)