In the landmark judgement, Mehar Badshah vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the Supreme Court of Pakistan sets the precedent of environmental rights litigation under Article 9A of the constitution.
The Climate Risk Index (CRI) 2025 ranks Pakistan as the most affected country by extreme weather events in 2022[1]. Being at the front line of the environmental crisis, our flora, fauna, and topography are under the constant shadow of depletion. Deforestation in particular has become a grave issue with Justice Jawad Hasan, citing a research report, observing that the natural forest cover had reduced from 3.59 million hectares to 3.32m hectares at an average rate of 27,000 hectares annually.[2]
KPK, known for its beautiful snow-covered tapestries of Shisham, Deodar and Pine, is under constant scrutiny with due unchecked activities of the timber mafia. With political backing, this timber mafia is operating and rooting out all the precious timber, leading to increasing landslides and reduced carbon absorption. Amidst all this flora depletion, the 26th Amendment 2024 incorporated Article 9A in the Constitution 1973, introducing “The Right To a Healthy Environment” as a fundamental right, previously dealt with in the scope of Article 9, “Right to Life”. This case, Mehar Badshah v. The Government of KPK, is a significant development in understanding the judicial interpretation and scope of Article 9A.
Hearing of civil petition No. 524-P of 2015, which pertained to the illegal cutting of 218 Shisham trees, led to the resurfacing of a broader question of deforestation in KPK, which solely reflected the sheer incompetence of the Forest Authorities. Taking cognizance of the larger issue, the Court directed the KP Government to submit a detailed report addressing the following:
(a) The annual budget of the Forest Department
(b) The total number of employees
(c) The quantity of timber legally allowed to be cut
(d) The quantity of timber illegally cut
(e) reforestation measures and expenditure
(f) The total forest cover of the province, along with the methodology used to measure it
In response, the Additional AG (AAG) KPK submitted a report signed by the Division Forest Officer (DFO) Mardan. The court questioned the authority by which an anonymous DFO was allowed to submit a poorly drafted and undated report that was required by the provincial government. The report disclosed that the Forest Department employed 7,422 personnel. Over the past five years, 6,066,185 cubic feet of timber were legally cut, while 130,255 cubic feet were cut illegally — the latter subsequently confiscated by the department. The core legal issue that arose was whether this state-sanctioned depletion of forests, combined with administrative negligence, amounted to a violation of the people’s fundamental rights under Articles 9 and 9A of the Constitution.
Petitioners argued that the negligence of the Forest Department in eliminating the timber mafia is placing a heavy burden on the already depleting flora of KPK and Pakistan and making the country prone to exponential environmental degradation. Moreover, it directly hits Article 9 “Right of life” in its broader interpretation, given in Shehla Zia v. WAPDA[3], and newly incorporated Article 9A “Right to a Healthy Environment”.
Respondent – The KPK government, in addition to submitting an earlier weak report, reassured the court that proper and effective measures would be taken to reverse the impact of deforestation in the affected areas.
The Supreme Court, however, unanimously criticized the “colonial mindset” of the forest department that viewed the forest only as a source of exploitation. In Shehla Zia vs. WAPDA, the scope of word “life” was increased “Life includes all such amenities and facilities which a person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy with dignity, legally and constitutionally.”[4] The Supreme Court in Province of Sindh v. Shahzad Hussain Talpur[5] addressed the state’s duty in environmental conservation. The bench reiterated the environmental vulnerability of Pakistan while emphasizing the fact that the newly inserted Article 9A now elevates the status of “Right to a Healthy Environment” to an independent constitutional right interpreted outside the umbrella of Article 9. In addition, the court referred to the Quranic and Islamic principles regarding the protection of nature and its resources as a moral and constitutional obligation.
The case holds landmark significance as it marks the first concrete judicial application of newly incorporated Article 9A, making Pakistan one of those few countries having the “Right to a Healthy Environment” a part of their constitution. Previously, environmental protection litigation was dealt with indirectly under Article 9 and its interpretation of the word “Life”. This judgment shifts the status of environmental rights to standalone, justiciable rights protected by the Constitution. In addition to setting a precedent for the implementation of Article 9A, this judgment sheds light on the duties of governmental authorities in the protection of natural resources. The court held that illegal cutting of the trees combined with the incompetence of the Forest Department was indeed a violation of both Article 9 and 9A of the constitution, burdening and already depleting the environmental sustainability. Furthermore, opening the doors for future Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning environmental rights, this judgement will become a precedent for upcoming judgements.
Despite these steps, challenges like institutional weaknesses, political will, and bureaucratic hurdles create a lingering shadow of doubt regarding practical implementation. Without strong regulatory frameworks and policy implementation, the importance of Article 9A would only remain symbolic rather than transformative, and it would be unable to solve the environmental crisis of Pakistan.
At present, Pakistan is ranked as the fifth most vulnerable country to climate change despite the fact that its contributions to global warming are significantly lower than those of other nations.[6] While controversial, environmental activism by the judiciary has played a significant role in Pakistan’s attempts to protect its environment. This highlights that the real problem lies in the deep-rooted structural flaws and poor implementation.
In conclusion, the incorporation of Article 9A was a great initiative, but its true success relies on its ability to bring structural reforms, steering Pakistan towards environmental sustainability.
[1] Germanwatch, Climate Risk Index (Germanwatch, 2024) https://www.germanwatch.org/en/cri accessed [28 March 2025].
[2] ‘Pakistan’s Forest Cover Depleting Fast’ (Dawn, 4 September 2019) https://www.dawn.com/news/1503365 accessed [28 March 2025].
[3] Shehla Zia vs. WAPDA – PLD 1994 Supreme Court 693
[4] Ibid Id. at para. 12.
[5] Province of Sindh v. Shahzad Hussain Talpur (2022 SCMR 439)
[6] Press Information Department, ‘Pakistan Ranked 5th Most Vulnerable Country to Climate Change: Tirmizi’ (Press Information Department, 17 April 2024) https://pid.gov.pk/site/press_detail/25011 accessed 28 March 2025.
