Public Interest Litigation in Pakistan: Evolution, Key Cases, and Constitutional Implications

Abstract

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Pakistan has become one of the leading tools of human rights, environmental protection, and accountability of the government. The paper will discuss how PIL has been formed within the constitutional framework of Pakistan and how the upper courts and, specifically, the Supreme Court, which has the original jurisdiction over the cases under the 1973 Constitution, Article 184(3), have opened the gateways to accessing the justice system through the allowance of traditional locus standi requirements. It gives a brief but strict examination of landmark cases, such as Benazir Bhutto v. Shehla Zia v. Federation of Pakistan (1988), which allowed PIL by allowing challenges in the interest of the people; Federation of Pakistan (1988). WAPDA (1994) broadening the meaning of the right to life to include a healthy environment; the Panama Papers Case (Imran Khan v.). Nawaz Sharif, 2017), a prime example of PIL in the high accountability space; and the Dam Fund Case (2018), a case that led to the discussion of judicial overreach. The paper moves through the academic arguments over the merits and flaws of judicial activism under the banner of PIL with the paper observing that PIL has helped the less privileged gain strength and impact the public policy as well as bringing about the concern of separation of power, judicial over-reach and political abuse. The analysis of the constitutional principles involved is done with the help of a doctrinal methodology relying on case law and academic commentary. It finishes by suggesting ways to perfect the PIL structure, including to clarify admissibility standards, reform the procedures and balance between activism and restraint so that the litigation by the public interest is still a device of justice and governmental accountability without obstructing democratic governance.