“[O]ur Constitution gives every Zimbabwean the right to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations. That is done through legislative and other measures that prevent ecological degradation, promote conservation and secure ecological sustainable development. Ecologically sustainable development ensures that all living creatures, including birds, are enableed to meet their needs from the environment we rely on.
Ashgar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (W.P. No. 25501/2015)
Lahore High Court Green Bench
A farmer filed a public interest litigation alleging the government of Pakistan’s inaction and delay in implementing the National Climate Change Policy and addressing vulnerabilities associated with climate change violates the fundamental constitutional rights to life and dignity.
In its first order, issued 4 September 2015, the Green Bench declared:
The High Court of Uganda (Kampala) declared that “the manufacture, distribution, use, sale, sell disposal of plastic bags, plastic containers, plastic food wrappers, and all other forms of plastic commonly referred to as ‘kaveera’ violates the rights of citizens of Uganda to a clean and healthy environment.”
Greenpeace Nordic Ass’n and Nature and Youth v. Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, Case no. 16-166674TVI-OTIR/06 (Oslo District Court) (4 January 2018)
Greenpeace Nordic Association and Natur og Ungdom (Nature & Youth) filed a case challenging licenses for offshore oil production granted by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy.
In January, 2018, the Oslo District Court found Article 112 of the Norwegian Constitution creates an enforceable right to a healthy environment. The court acknowledged that this right includes the right to a healthy climate.
Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v. Fingal County Council  IEHC 695 (Nov. 21, 2017)
Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) challenged a decision by the Fingal County Council to issue a five-year extension of its planning permission (originally issued in 2007) to the Dublin Airport Authority for the construction of a new runway.
Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No.126 of 2014 (December 5, 2016 and March 20, 2017)
High Court of Uttarakhand
NOTE: In July 2017, the Supreme Court of India issued a stay of the High Court’s order. The appeal has not yet been decided.
* * *
Mohammed Salim filed public interest litigation in the High Court of Uttarakhand concerning illegal construction and encroachments along the Ganges River, as well as the failure to constitute the Ganga Management Board, as required by the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000.
On 17 January 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed orders of the Oregon District Court and remanded the case with instructions for the District Court to dismiss the case for lack of Article III standing. Two judges on a three-judge panel found the plaintiffs did not establish their claims were redressable by the courts.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs have announced that they will request a full Ninth Circuit review of this decision.
Asghar Leghari v. Federation of Pakistan (W.P. No. 25501/2015)
Lahore High Court Green Bench [Magistratura Verde del Tribunal Superior de Lahore]
Un agricultor entabló un litigio de interés público, alegando que la inacción y demora del Gobierno de Pakistán en implementar la Política Nacional de Cambio Climático y en abordar las vulnerabilidades asociadas con el cambio climático violan los derechos constitucionales fundamentales a la vida y a la dignidad.
En su primera orden, emitida el 4 de septiembre de 2015, la Magistratura Verde declaró: