The Lahore High Court affirmed that the right to food is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of Pakistan, Islamic edicts, and international law. The High Court granted a writ of mandamus directing government authorities to do all in their power to preserve, conserve, and manage food resources to prevent waste and to distribute excess food to people in need.
The High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh issued a Rule Nisi directing agriculture, health, and environmental ministries in Bangladesh to show cause as to why they should not phase out glyphosate-based pesticides in favor of using safer alternatives. Among other things, the ministries are required to fully study the use and impacts of pesticides, investigate pesticide-related deaths, and immediately implement public awareness campaigns about the risks of using glyphosate-based pesticides.
The government of India has a constitutional duty to protect communal water bodies, and the people of India have a right to a healthy environment which encompasses access to water; therefore, the government may not allocate these vital resources to private third-parties for development. Construction of artificial, replacement water bodies will not suffice because the environment cannot be resuscitated by “merely filling a hole with water elsewhere.”
Declaring "we need to move to climate change justice," the Lahore High Court Green Bench ordered the government of Pakistan to implement the National Climate Change Policy and convened a Climate Change Commission to oversee and report to the Court on progress.
The State of Washington has violated Tribes' off-reservation fishing rights by building and maintaining culverts under State roads that harm fish habitat and reduce the production of fish. Because (1) currently there is not enough harvestable salmon available to ensure the Tribes a moderate living, (2) the State’s culverts block roughly a thousand miles of streams suitable for salmon habitat, and (3) replacing or modifying those culverts (structures built to allow streams to flow under roads) to allow fish passage would produce several hundred thousand additional mature salmon each year, the State was ordered to identify all state-owned barrier culverts and ensure those culverts allow fish passage (by differentiated deadlines depending on several ecological and economic considerations).
A U.S. court vacated a decision granting a right-of-way for a proposed natural gas pipeline that would have crossed a portion of a U.S. national park. The National Park Service failed to provide any explanation justifying its determination that pipeline construction and use would be consistent with the conservation and preservation purposes of the national park.
The Supreme Court determined several Colombian authorities responsible for the deforestation in the Amazon and ordered those authorities to develop plans and implement measures to stop the emissions of GHGs and other harmful impacts caused by deforestation in order to protect fundamental rights of Colombians, especially those of children and future generations.
The High Court of Kenya remanded the environmental license issued for a port project for reconsideration and directed the project proponent to pay Kshs. 1.7 billion in compensation to affected fishing communities who will be impacted by the project. During the reconsideration process, decisionmakers must evaluate the external costs of the port project on the environment and local communities.
In the context of reviewing a planning decision allowing expansion of Dublin’s airport, the High Court of Ireland declared that Ireland’s constitution protects the personal right to an environment that is consistent with the human dignity and well-being of citizens at large.
A court summarily dismissed a defamation action brought against a community member who posted concerns on Facebook about potential contamination from a nearby gravel pit. The community member’s statements were valid expressions related to a matter of public interest.
A utility company violated the Clean Water Act when it disposed of coal ash into unlined ponds, which leaked contaminants via groundwater to an adjacent river. The court directed the utility company to excavate the coal ash and move it to a dry lined disposal location.
