The Role of the Judiciary in Environmental Protection: A Study of Landmark Judgments

Abstract

In the face of accelerating ecological crises, courts worldwide have emerged as pivotal actors in environmental governance. This article examines how judicial bodies—from domestic benches in India, Pacific, Africa, and Latin America to international tribunals—have expanded environmental norms through procedures like constitutional adjudication, climate litigation, and rights-based jurisprudence. Special emphasis is placed on the integration of Indigenous and local community voices and how procedural, substantive, and ecocentric legal trends are reshaping the future of environmental justice.

1. Introduction

Environmental degradation, climate breakdown, and biodiversity loss have triggered a global legal pivot. Traditional avenues—executive regulations and legislative statutes—have often lagged behind or been undermined by vested interests. Consequently, courts have stepped into the breach, not merely interpreting law but innovating it. Through wide-ranging case-law, judicial bodies have shaped norms surrounding sustainable development, climate accountability, intergenerational equity, public trust, and environmental personhood, developing jurisprudence that transcends political inertia. In this day and age—marked by planetary boundaries, systemic inequality, and the accelerating collapse of ecosystems—the judiciary emerges as a transformative actor. This evolving legal terrain is not only reactive but increasingly anticipatory—embracing precautionary approaches, safeguarding future generations, and redefining legal standing. The judiciary is now a site of moral as well as legal reckoning, particularly in Global South contexts where ecological threats often intersect with historical injustices. This article surveys landmark cases across jurisdictions, underlines the critical contributions of Indigenous and local knowledge, and identifies structural challenges and forward pathways for environmental jurisprudence.

2. Doctrinal Foundations

2.1. The Precautionary Principle & Sustainable Development

Originating in international frameworks like Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration, the precautionary principle allows courts to issue preventative orders when harm is possible even if evidence remains scientifically uncertain.^[1] The Velloza case in the Philippines (2000) exemplifies this, where logging was suspended due to potential ecological disruption.^[2] In India, the Supreme Court in MC Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997) halted a highway project over inadequate environmental safeguards—stressing constitutional supremacy over administrative decisions.^[3]

Sustainable development—balancing economic needs with environmental protection—has likewise gained judicial footing. South Africa’s Fuel Retailers case required public participation and environmental consideration in granting fuel licences.^[4]

2.2. Polluter-Pays & Intergenerational Equity

The landmark Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum case introduced strict liability and polluter-pays, ordering industrial funds to clean polluted rivers.^[5] The intergenerational equity principle was judicially entrenched in the Philippine Oposa case, where children sued on behalf of future generations, creating a legal obligation toward environmental stewardship.^[6]

2.3. Public Trust Doctrine & Procedural Rights

The doctrine holds that natural resources belong to the public and must be conserved. National cases like Kenya’s Save Lamu (2019) invalidated coal plant approvals due to flawed impact assessments and non-inclusion of public voices.^[7] Procedural rights—access to information, public participation, and judicial access—are increasingly viewed as constituting a foundational pillar of environmental justice globally.^[8]

3. Landmark Judicial Interventions

3.1. Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands (2015–2019)

This Dutch Supreme Court decision mandated a 25% reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, grounding its judgment in Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR.^[9] It was a watershed judiciary moment that compelled a democratic government to adopt scientifically supported climate action. Post-ruling data confirmed that target attainment was met, signaling judicial effectiveness.^[10]

3.2. Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell (2021)

In a groundbreaking corporate accountability case, a Dutch court ordered Shell to cut emissions by 45% by 2030 (baseline 2019), referencing UN guidance on business and human rights.^[11] Though altered on appeal, the Supreme Court will still determine the enforceability—marking a new paradigm where businesses face litigation for climate negligence.^[12]

3.3. Leghari v Federation of Pakistan (2015)

Challenging governmental inaction on climate policy, the Lahore High Court held that constitutional rights to life and dignity were violated. It established a Climate Change Commission to supervise policy implementation—an example of courts compelling administrative follow-through.^[13]

3.4. MC Mehta & Vellore Citizens Cases (India)

The Oleum gas leak in Delhi led to rulings establishing absolute liability and expanding Article 21 to include clean environment rights. Furthermore, Vellore Citizens advanced the polluter-pays and precautionary principles, catalyzing systematic river cleanup and industrial regulation.^[14]

3.5. Sarayaku v Ecuador (2012)

Ecuador’s Indigenous community brought a case to the IACHR, which held that petroleum exploration without Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) violated Indigenous rights. This enhanced FPIC’s legal status and cemented procedural protections for community sovereignty.^[15]

3.6. Whanganui River & Te Urewera (NZ)

In 2014 and 2017, New Zealand recognized these ecosystems as legal persons with guardians appointed jointly by iwi and the Crown.^[16] This ecocentric innovation, rooted in Māori jurisprudence, allows legal action on behalf of nature itself.

3.7. Tsilhqot’in & Grassy Narrows (Canada)

Canadian courts recognized Aboriginal title (Tsilhqot’in) and held the government and corporations accountable for environmental harm to Indigenous communities (Grassy Narrows), integrating ecological harm into property and treaty law.^[17]

3.8. Pulp Mills & SRFC Advisory Opinion (International Courts)

The ICJ’s Pulp Mills decision mandated EIAs as customary transboundary law.^[18] Similarly, the ITLOS opinion upheld state duties of climate and oceanic stewardship.^[19] Both cases reinforce environmental obligations at the international level.

4. Regional Jurisprudence: Africa & MENA

The Kenyan Tribunal invalidated a coal plant license due to flawed environmental impact assessments and lack of public participation, emphasizing that environmental decisions require procedural rigour and local agency.^[20]

4.2. SERAP v Nigeria (ECOWAS Court)

This landmark judgment recognized a right to a healthy environment under regional human rights law, ordering the government to address Ogoni Delta pollution—though enforcement remains pending.^[21]

4.3. Egyptian Environmental Litigation (MENA)

Recent rulings by the Council of State have halted infrastructure projects for environmental and heritage reasons.^[22] While judicial activism is limited by political centralization, these cases indicate rising environmental discourse in the region.

5. Indigenous & Local Community Voices

Environmental justice is inseparable from community empowerment and epistemic pluralism.

• FPIC & Procedural Justice: Cases like Sarayaku and Leghari enforce FPIC, guaranteeing community agency.
• TEK & Legal Validity: Canadian courts in Tsilhqot’in and Grassy Narrows elevate Indigenous ecological knowledge in legal assessments.^[23]
• Guardianship & Co-Governance: New Zealand’s Whanganui model deploys guardians that represent both Indigenous and governmental perspectives.^[24]

These practices highlight courts’ ability to institutionalize local and Indigenous worldviews-moving jurisdictions from token recognition toward structural inclusion.

6. Structural Challenges & Implementation Gaps 

Despite the judiciary’s notable achievements, significant structural shortcomings threaten the effectiveness of environmental jurisprudence. These challenges include systemic barriers to access, institutional deficiencies, and political dynamics—all of which risk weakening judicial impact on environmental protection.

a. Unequal Access to Justice

While courts increasingly recognize environmental rights, access remains uneven. High legal costs, technical complexities, and geographical limitations often bar impoverished communities from seeking redress. Even in jurisdictions with Public Interest Litigation mechanisms—such as India—plaintiffs may lack funding or representation, slowing down judicial processes.^[25] Furthermore, many Global South nations lack formal legal aid systems for environmental litigants, exacerbating structural inequalities.^[26] The digital divide further compounds these issues, limiting access to legal resources and court procedures.

b. Weak Enforcement Mechanisms

Winning a court ruling is one thing; seeing it implemented is quite another. Across the Global South, judicial orders on environmental protection routinely become symbolic. In Pakistan, the Climate Change Commission established post-Leghari has struggled with limited funding, administrative red tape, and executive indifference—transforming a once-promising mandate into a fragmented series of studies with little enforcement.^[27] Similarly, Shell’s emissions-reduction mandate remains under appeal, with enforcement uncertain. Without strong administrative follow-through, courts’ decisions can lose traction, reducing environmental justice to paper commitments.

c. Political Interference and Judicial Capture

Courts are not immune to political pressure. In many countries, judges face implicit coercion—from threats to tenure security to outright corruption. In Nigeria, ECOWAS rulings on Niger Delta pollution have had limited domestic effect due to government sabotage and institutional weakness.^[28] The intimidation of environmental defenders is another grave concern. Activists—and sometimes judges themselves—face violence, legal harassment, or removal for challenging powerful economic interests. Such conditions can deter courageous rulings and hinder effective jurisprudence.

d. The Risk of Judicial Overreach

Judicial intervention may sometimes risk undermining democratic legitimacy. When courts impose complex regulatory regimes—as seen in Urgenda or Milieudefensie—they may be accused of policy-making by unelected bodies.^[29] Although courts often justify their decisions based on statutory frameworks and rights, the boundary between judicial interpretation and political discretion becomes blurred. Much hinges on both the court’s transparent reasoning and the broader political context; where trust in the judiciary is weak, such rulings can spark backlash or executive defiance.

e. Fragmentation and Fragmentary Remedies

Judicial rulings often tackle single issues—like banning a coal plant or ordering emission reductions—without integrating broader systemic planning or resource allocation. Environmental challenges span multiple levels (local, national, global), necessitating cross-sector coordination. Yet courts, limited to legal orders, are often unable to facilitate such holistic responses. The result is a patchwork of incremental rulings that may not add up to comprehensive ecological protection.^[30]

f. Absence of Indigenous and Participatory Structures

Even when courts recognize Indigenous rights or appoint guardians, participatory systems can collapse without formal integration into governance. Co-management arrangements in New Zealand, for instance, require ongoing political and fiscal support. Similarly, binding recognition of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in assessments doesn’t always translate into institutional power—especially where bureaucratic culture remains resistant to non-Western epistemologies.^[31] The risk is tokenism, where Indigenous involvement becomes an add-on rather than a structural overhaul of governance systems.

7. Conclusion & Pathways Ahead

The judiciary has undeniably reshaped the landscape of environmental governance, asserting itself as a formidable force in global ecological stewardship. Yet lasting change hinges not on isolated judicial interventions, but on transforming systemic conditions—ensuring that judicial pronouncements result in tangible, sustained environmental benefit.

To navigate the implementation gap, environmental rulings must be accompanied by clear administrative mandates and dedicated funding. Courts can design compliance mechanisms that involve independent oversight bodies—bolstered by legislative authority—to monitor progress and enforce accountability. Embedding judicial orders in everyday governance processes helps close the distance between principle and practice.^[32]

Moreover, judicial environmentalism must be accompanied by institutional reform. Establishing or strengthening specialist environmental or green courts ensures both technical expertise and consistent, coherent jurisprudence.^[33] These courts—empowered with transparent processes and accessible public funding—can mitigate procedural delays and ensure equitable access to justice.^[34]

Critically, Indigenous and local communities must move from passive consultation to co-governance. Judicial recognition of rights must always be backed by structural mechanisms for representation—through dedicated trusts, guardianship bodies, and standing rules. Embedding TEK into statutory frameworks—rather than leaving it to judicial discretion—will prevent tokenism and decentralize environmental decision-making.^[35]

The integration of judicial decisions into cohesive national and supranational policy frameworks is essential. Networked environmental courts—across nations and jurisdictions—can foster judicial dialogue, harmonize standards, and enable peer learning.^[36] This will help prevent fragmentation and enhance jurisprudential consistency across borders.^[37]

Finally, judicial activism must be grounded in deliberative legitimacy. Courts need to explain how their interventions derive from law, not policy preference. This can be achieved by framing decisions through rights-based, constitutional and human rights frameworks—emphasizing judicial roles as guardians of rights, not policy architects.^[38] Robust public deliberation, supported by media discourse and civic engagement, can legitimize interventions and guard against political backlash.^[39]

8. Closing Reflection

Ultimately, the judiciary’s evolving role presents a historic opportunity: courts can stitch together rights, responsibilities, and ecological sustainability into a cohesive governance architecture. But to preside over sustainable futures, judiciaries must act within a supportive ecosystem—anchored by democratic institutions, human rights norms, community engagement, and international cooperation.

The challenge before us is not simply to craft judicial remedies, but to build systems that give them life. The transition toward ecological justice demands more than protective rulings; it requires adaptive governance, inter-institutional synergy, long-term vision, and a pluralist legal imagination that honors both human dignity and the rights of Earth itself. In an era defined by crisis, the law must become not just a shield, but perhaps a bridge—linking past harms to future hope. And only through genuine partnership across sectors, disciplines, and generations can these legal innovations be sustained and translated into transformative environmental outcomes.

References

^[1] Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (adopted 14 June 1992, UN Doc A/CONF.151/26 (Vol I)) Principle 15.

^[2] Velloza v Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources [2000] 368 SCRA 165.

^[3] M C Mehta v Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388.

^[4] Fuel Retailers Association of SA v Director-General: Environmental Affairs [2007] ZACC 13.

^[5] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647.

^[6] Oposa v Factoran [1993] GR No 101083 (Philippines SC).

^[7] Save Lamu v National Environment Management Authority NET 196 of 2016 (Kenya National Environmental Tribunal).

^[8] Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) (adopted 25 June 1998, entered into force 30 October 2001) 2161 UNTS 447.

^[9] Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands [2019] ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007 (Dutch Supreme Court).

^[10] CBS Netherlands, ‘Urgenda reduction target for GHG emissions achieved in 2020’ (6 June 2022) https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2022/06/urgenda-reduction-target-for-ghg-emissions-achieved-in-2020 accessed 20 July 2025. 

^[11] Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell plc (District Court of The Hague, C/09/571932, 26 May 2021).

^[12] Reuters, ‘Shell wins appeal against landmark Dutch climate ruling’ (12 November 2024) https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shell-wins-appeal-against-landmark-dutch-climate-ruling-2024-11-12/ accessed 20 July 2025.

^[13] Ashgar Leghari v Federation of Pakistan [2015] W P No 25501/2015 (Lahore High Court). 

^[14] M C Mehta v Union of India [1987] AIR 965 (SC); M C Mehta v Kamal Nath (n 3).

^[15] Sarayaku v Ecuador [2012] I-C-245 (Inter-American Court of Human Rights).

^[16] Te Urewera Act 2014 (NZ); Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 (NZ).

^[17] Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia [2014] SCC 44; Grassy Narrows First Nation v Ontario [2014] SCC 46.

^[18] Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay) [2010] ICJ Rep 14.

^[19] Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) (Advisory Opinion) ITLOS Case No 21 (2 April 2015). 

^[20] Natural Justice, ‘Reflections on the Lamu Coal Plant Case’ (Natural Justice 2024) https://naturaljustice.org/reflections-of-the-lamu-coal-plant-case/ accessed 20 July 2025.

^[21] Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project v Federal Republic of Nigeria ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/12 (ECOWAS Court of Justice, 2010).

^[22] Sama Group for Urban Studies, ‘Environmental Litigation in the Arab Region: Prospects and Barriers’ (2022)

^[23] Impact Assessment Act 2019 (Canada).
^[24] Te Awa Tupua (n 16).

^[25] A D Tarlock, ‘The Future of Environmental “Rule of Law” Litigation’ (2015) 50 Environmental Law Reporter 10603.  

^[26] Lavanya Rajamani, ‘Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability’ (2007) 19(3) Journal of Environmental Law 293.

^[27] Global Witness, Defending Tomorrow: The Climate Crisis and Threats against Land and Environmental Defenders (Global Witness 2020) https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/defending-tomorrow/ accessed 20 July 2025.

^[28] Transparency International, ‘Corruption and the Environment’ (Transparency International 2018) https://www.transparency.org accessed 20 July 2025.

^[29] Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands [2019] ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007 (Dutch Supreme Court).

^[30] A D Tarlock (n 25).

^[31] N Madaoui, ‘Evolving Jurisprudence of Environmental Law: A Doctrinal Analysis’ (2023) Analìtično-porìvnâlʹne pravoznavstvo.  

^[32] Lavanya Rajamani, ‘Public Interest Environmental Litigation in India: Exploring Issues of Access, Participation, Equity, Effectiveness and Sustainability’ (2007) 19(3) Journal of Environmental Law 293.

^[33] Carl Bruch et al, Justice and the Environment: Courts, the Public, and Environmental Justice (Environmental Law Institute 2007) 22–25.

^[34] Ahmad Rafay Alam, ‘Climate Justice and the Judiciary in Pakistan: A View from the Bench’ in Christina Voigt and Zen Makuch (eds), Courts and the Environment (Edward Elgar 2018) 179–85.

^[35] Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment) [2015] ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7196 (District Court of The Hague); Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell plc (n 11).

^[36] Rachael Salihu, ‘Implementation Challenges in ECOWAS Environmental Law: The Case of Niger Delta Litigation’ (2020) 11(2) African Journal of Legal Studies 122.

^[37] Global Witness (n 26).

^[38] Brian J Preston, ‘Judicial Governance of Climate Change: Reflections on the Australian Experience’ (2020) 27(3) Environmental Liability 86.

^[39] Tracey Whare, ‘Indigenous Peoples and Climate Governance: A Maori Perspective on Co-Governance of Natural Resources in New Zealand’ in Daniel F Robinson et al (eds), Climate Change, Indigenous Knowledge and Cultural Rights (Routledge 2021) 174–90.