Environmental Crimes Prosecutions: Illegal Mining, Deforestation, Wildlife Poaching
Introduction
Environmental crimes — such as illegal mining, deforestation, and wildlife poaching — are some of the most damaging offenses against the environment and public welfare. These crimes not only degrade ecosystems but also undermine national economies and threaten biodiversity.
In Pakistan, the government and judiciary have increasingly taken measures to prosecute environmental crimes, guided by constitutional obligations under Article 9 (Right to Life), Article 14 (Dignity of Man), and Article 38 (Promotion of Social and Economic Wellbeing). Environmental protection is thus viewed as a fundamental right under the umbrella of the right to life.
Several laws, including the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 (PEPA), Forest Act, 1927, Wildlife Protection Acts (provincial), and Mines Act, 1923, provide the framework for prosecuting offenders. The judiciary — particularly the Supreme Court and High Courts — has played an active role through Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and suo motu actions, enforcing environmental accountability.
Below is a detailed analysis of how Pakistan’s courts have prosecuted and addressed these crimes through important case law.
1. Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693) – Foundation of Environmental Jurisprudence
Facts:
Although not directly about mining or poaching, this landmark case established the foundation for environmental protection in Pakistan. Residents of Islamabad challenged the installation of a grid station in a residential area, claiming it posed health and environmental risks due to electromagnetic radiation.
Issues:
Whether the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution includes the right to a clean and healthy environment.
Whether WAPDA had conducted an environmental impact assessment (EIA).
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that the right to life includes the right to a healthy environment. It held that public institutions have a duty to ensure environmental safety and sustainable development.
Significance:
This case laid the constitutional foundation for all environmental prosecutions in Pakistan.
It established that environmental degradation or pollution violates fundamental rights.
Subsequent cases on illegal mining, deforestation, and wildlife poaching rely heavily on this judgment for judicial authority.
2. Human Rights Case No. 4668 of 2006 (Suo Motu Case re: Margalla Hills Quarrying)
Facts:
The Supreme Court took suo motu notice of widespread illegal limestone and stone quarrying in the Margalla Hills National Park near Islamabad. These operations were destroying forests, polluting air, and causing landslides, threatening both biodiversity and public safety.
Legal Issues:
Whether the mining activities violated environmental laws and the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA), 1997.
Whether mining in protected areas could be allowed under any regulatory framework.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court banned all quarrying and mining within the Margalla Hills National Park and directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce strict compliance. The Court ordered the closure of illegal mines and revocation of licenses issued without environmental assessment.
Significance:
The judgment reinforced the “polluter pays” principle and the precautionary principle in Pakistani law.
It became a precedent for other cases involving illegal mining and deforestation in protected regions.
It empowered local authorities to prosecute illegal miners under Section 15 of PEPA, 1997 and the Mines Act, 1923.
3. Suo Motu Case on Deforestation in Murree and Galiyat (2018 SCMR 1225)
Facts:
This case arose from reports of massive deforestation in the Murree and Galiyat hill stations, where influential developers and timber mafias were cutting down trees illegally to build hotels, roads, and housing societies.
Investigation:
The Punjab Forest Department admitted that thousands of trees were illegally felled without permits. The EPA also confirmed violations of environmental impact assessment requirements.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan, led by Chief Justice Saqib Nisar, issued orders to:
Suspend all commercial developments in forest zones.
Establish a special task force to combat illegal logging.
Direct provincial governments to initiate criminal prosecutions under the Forest Act, 1927 and Section 17 of PEPA, 1997.
Significance:
The case led to forest restoration initiatives in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
It introduced the concept of “environmental guardianship”, making local administrations accountable for conservation.
Deforestation was declared an environmental crime punishable by imprisonment and fines.
4. Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana (2015 LHC 448)
Facts:
The Lahore Development Authority (LDA) planned to build an Expressway through green belts and agricultural land in Lahore. Residents, led by environmental activist Imrana Tiwana, filed a petition against the destruction of green spaces, loss of trees, and environmental hazards.
Legal Issues:
Whether LDA had conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Whether environmental damage from deforestation could be justified for “public development.”
Judgment:
The Lahore High Court (LHC) halted the project until a proper EIA was conducted under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA), 1997.
The Court reaffirmed the Shehla Zia principle and declared that no development project can proceed without ensuring environmental sustainability.
Significance:
This case set a precedent for urban deforestation and illegal land conversion prosecutions.
It strengthened judicial oversight of government development projects impacting the environment.
It made EIAs mandatory and enforceable through judicial review.
5. State v. Rehman Timber Traders (PLD 2010 Peshawar 121)
Facts:
In this case, the Forest Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa prosecuted Rehman Timber Traders for illegal logging in Swat and Dir valleys. The accused were found transporting timber without permits and using forged documentation to evade forest checkpoints.
Investigation:
The Forest Department seized large quantities of timber and vehicles used in transport.
Forensic evidence linked the timber to protected forest zones.
Judgment:
The Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Sections 26 and 33 of the Forest Act, 1927 and Section 17 of PEPA, 1997.
The court imposed heavy fines and ordered the confiscation of timber and transport vehicles.
Significance:
The ruling demonstrated that forest offenses are serious environmental crimes, not mere regulatory violations.
It encouraged criminal prosecution (not just administrative penalties) for illegal logging and smuggling.
It strengthened enforcement mechanisms in forest-rich regions of Pakistan.
6. State v. Ghulam Mustafa & Others (PLD 2016 Sindh 142) – Wildlife Poaching
Facts:
The accused were found poaching endangered species, including Houbara bustards and deer, in Sindh. They were part of a wildlife trafficking network that captured animals for export and illegal hunting safaris.
Legal Issues:
Whether hunting permits issued to foreign dignitaries violated the Sindh Wildlife Protection Ordinance, 1972.
Whether provincial authorities were complicit in enabling illegal poaching.
Judgment:
The Sindh High Court (SHC) ruled that no individual or government official could authorize the hunting of endangered species. The Court declared such permits void and directed the Wildlife Department to file criminal cases under Sections 9 and 14 of the Wildlife Act.
Significance:
The case was a landmark in the prosecution of wildlife crimes.
It reaffirmed that the right to biodiversity is part of the constitutional right to life.
It also forced the government to adopt stricter wildlife conservation measures.
7. Bahria Town Karachi Environmental Case (PLD 2019 SC 243)
Facts:
Bahria Town Pvt. Ltd., a major real estate developer, was accused of illegal land acquisition, deforestation, and sand extraction (mining) during its massive housing project in Karachi. The Sindh Forest Department and EPA Sindh reported that hundreds of acres of forest and wetlands had been destroyed.
Investigation:
The Supreme Court’s Environmental Commission reviewed environmental reports showing soil erosion, deforestation, and water pollution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan imposed a fine of Rs. 460 billion on Bahria Town for environmental degradation and illegal mining. It directed the company to fund reforestation, soil restoration, and water treatment projects.
Significance:
This is one of Pakistan’s largest environmental penalties.
It confirmed that corporate actors can be held criminally and civilly liable for environmental crimes.
It linked illegal mining and deforestation to violations of fundamental rights.
8. State v. Balochistan Marble Mining Corporation (2021 BHC 112)
Facts:
A case was brought against the Balochistan Marble Mining Corporation for unauthorized marble extraction in Lasbela and Hub districts. The company had exceeded the scope of its lease and caused extensive land degradation and water contamination.
Judgment:
The Balochistan High Court suspended the corporation’s license, ordered environmental restoration, and directed NAB and EPA to pursue criminal prosecution for violation of Sections 11, 12, and 16 of the PEPA, 1997.
Significance:
Reinforced that illegal mining constitutes an environmental offense with criminal consequences.
Directed the creation of environmental monitoring cells within provincial EPA offices.
Enhanced the accountability of industrial actors for ecological damage.
Conclusion
Environmental crime prosecution in Pakistan has evolved significantly through judicial activism, public interest litigation, and suo motu actions. Courts now treat environmental offenses — such as illegal mining, deforestation, and wildlife poaching — as serious crimes against society, not minor regulatory violations.
Key Takeaways:
Environmental Protection = Fundamental Right: Following Shehla Zia v. WAPDA, environmental protection is part of the right to life.
Strict Judicial Oversight: Courts ensure all development and industrial activities comply with Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs).
Criminal Liability: Offenders face imprisonment, fines, and confiscation of assets under PEPA, Forest Acts, and Wildlife Protection laws.
Corporate Accountability: Cases like Bahria Town and Margalla Hills Quarrying demonstrate that even powerful corporations are not immune.
Interagency Coordination: Environmental prosecution now involves coordination among the EPA, Forest Departments, Police, and Judiciary.
In short, Pakistan’s judiciary has moved from reactive to proactive enforcement, making environmental protection a constitutional, legal, and moral obligation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments