Environmental Governance and the Separation of Powers in Pakistan

Pakistan’s environmental crisis is no longer something that can be ignored or treated as a secondary policy issue. From hazardous air quality in major cities to worsening floods, water shortages, and disappearing green cover, environmental degradation is now directly affecting people’s health, livelihoods, and economic stability. At the same time, these challenges reveal something deeper: how well Pakistan’s system of governance is functioning.

To understand this, it is important to look at the principle of separation of powers—the idea that the legislature makes laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary interprets and enforces them. In Pakistan, this system exists on paper, but in practice, environmental governance shows a more complicated picture, where some institutions are active, others are weak, and responsibilities often overlap.

The Constitution: Silent Text, Active Interpretation

The Constitution of Pakistan does not explicitly guarantee a right to a clean or healthy environment. At first glance, this might seem like a major gap. However, Pakistan’s judiciary has addressed this issue by interpreting existing fundamental rights in a broader way.

In particular, Article 9—the right to life—has been expanded to include the right to live in a safe and healthy environment. This shift did not come through legislation, but through court decisions. A defining case was Shehla Zia v. WAPDA, where the Supreme Court held that environmental hazards, such as exposure to electromagnetic fields, could threaten citizens’ fundamental rights.

This interpretation changed the legal landscape. Environmental protection was no longer just a policy concern—it became a constitutional issue. As a result, citizens could bring environmental cases directly to the courts under the framework of fundamental rights.

The Legislative Role: Lawmaking with Gaps

Pakistan does have a formal legal framework for environmental protection. The most important statute is the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA), which established the structure for environmental regulation, including standards for pollution control and the creation of environmental protection agencies.

However, the legislative landscape changed significantly after the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan. This reform devolved many powers, including environmental regulation, from the federal government to the provinces.

In theory, this was a positive step. Local governments are often better placed to understand and respond to environmental issues in their regions. But in practice, devolution has created fragmentation. Each province now develops its own laws, standards, and enforcement mechanisms. Some provinces have stronger systems, while others lag behind due to limited capacity or political will.

Another issue is that environmental legislation is often not updated regularly. Many laws do not fully address modern challenges such as climate change, plastic pollution, or rapid urban expansion. Even when laws exist, they may lack clear enforcement mechanisms or are not prioritized compared to economic development goals.

The Executive: Implementation Struggles

The executive branch is responsible for turning laws into action. This includes institutions like the Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency and its provincial counterparts. These agencies are tasked with monitoring pollution levels, approving development projects through environmental impact assessments, and ensuring compliance with environmental standards.

On paper, these bodies have significant authority. In reality, they face serious challenges.

One major issue is limited resources. Many environmental agencies lack adequate funding, trained staff, and technical equipment. This makes it difficult to monitor industries, enforce regulations, or respond to violations effectively.

Political interference is another problem. Environmental decisions are often influenced by economic or political considerations, especially when large development projects are involved. In some cases, regulatory bodies may hesitate to act against powerful industries or government-backed initiatives.

There is also the issue of weak enforcement culture. Even when violations are identified, penalties may be minimal or inconsistently applied. This reduces the incentive for industries to comply with environmental standards.

The Judiciary: Filling the Gap

In contrast to the legislature and executive, the judiciary—especially the Supreme Court of Pakistan—has taken a much more active role in environmental governance.

Courts in Pakistan have not limited themselves to resolving disputes brought before them. They have also used their powers to take suo motu notice of environmental issues, meaning they can initiate cases on their own when public interest is involved.

This has led to judicial involvement in a wide range of issues, including air and water pollution, deforestation, urban planning, and climate change. In the well-known Asghar Leghari case, for example, the court directed the government to implement its climate change policy more effectively, even setting up a commission to monitor progress.

Such actions have had a real impact. They have pushed governments to act, increased public awareness, and strengthened accountability. In many ways, the judiciary has become the most effective branch when it comes to environmental protection.

However, this raises an important concern. When courts begin to direct policy or oversee implementation, they move beyond their traditional role. While this may be necessary in the short term, it can blur the boundaries between institutions and weaken the principle of separation of powers.

A System Out of Balance

What emerges from this analysis is a system where responsibilities are not evenly carried out. The legislature often fails to update or enforce strong environmental laws. The executive struggles to implement them effectively. As a result, the judiciary steps in to fill the gap.

While this has led to some positive outcomes, it is not a sustainable model. Courts are not designed to act as policymakers or administrators. Over-reliance on judicial intervention can also reduce pressure on the other strengthen and improve their performance performance.

The Way Forward

Improving environmental governance in Pakistan requires restoring balance among the three branches of government.

The legislature needs to take a more active role in updating environmental laws, ensuring they address modern challenges and are consistent across provinces. Clear national standards, even within a devolved system, can help reduce fragmentation.

The executive must be strengthened through better funding, training, and institutional independence. Environmental agencies should be empowered to act without political interference and held accountable for their performance.

The judiciary should continue to play its important role in protecting fundamental rights, but with careful consideration of institutional boundaries. Its interventions should encourage, rather than replace, executive action.

Finally, greater coordination between federal and provincial governments is essential. Environmental issues do not follow administrative boundaries, and a fragmented approach cannot effectively address them.

Conclusion

Environmental governance in Pakistan highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of its constitutional system. The principle of separation of powers remains central, but its practical application is uneven.

The judiciary has played a crucial and often necessary role in advancing environmental protection. However, lasting progress will depend on all three branches fulfilling their responsibilities. Only through a more balanced and coordinated approach can Pakistan effectively respond to its environmental challenges while maintaining the integrity of its democratic system.