Environmental Law Case: Advocate Padam Bahadur Shrestha v. Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, et al., NKP 2076, DN: 10210
Case: Adaptation strategies of climate change
Plaintiff: Advocate Padam Bahadur Shrestha
Respondent: Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, et al.
Decision Number: 10210
This case is related to the state’s duty to address the issues of climate change.
Facts of the Case:
This case is related to the pressing need for the enactment and effective implementation of a separate, integrated law to address the impacts, mitigation, and adaptation strategies of climate change. The petitioner, Advocate Padam Bahadur Shrestha, filed a writ petition claiming that climate change poses a direct threat to human lives, biodiversity, and the ecosystem. He argued that the existing Environment Protection Act, 2053 was severely inadequate as it lacked definitive legal frameworks to manage climate change responsibilities, emissions, and adaptation measures.
The respondent ministries and government departments asked the court to quash the petition, asserting that they were already operating various policies and pilot programs (such as NAPA, LAPA, and the Climate Change Policy, 2067) within their budgetary limits. Furthermore, the Office of the Prime Minister argued that drafting and amending laws falls under the exclusive legislative competence of the Parliament, rendering a court order inappropriate. The Supreme Court, however, observed that the adverse effects of climate change directly infringe upon the citizens’ fundamental rights to live with dignity and a clean environment, thereby issuing a strict directive to the government.
Legal Issues:
- Whether the widespread threat of climate change constitutes a matter of public interest and concern, granting the petitioner a meaningful relation (standing) to file the writ?
- Whether the fundamental right to live with dignity (Article 16) and the right to a clean and healthy environment (Article 30) guaranteed by the Constitution of Nepal encompass protection against the direct and indirect hazards of climate change?
- Whether the Supreme Court can issue a Mandamus directing the government to draft a separate, comprehensive climate change law when existing environmental statutes fail to cover climate adaptation, mitigation and liability?
Decision of Different Courts:
Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and issued a Writ of Mandamus against the respondents. The Court delivered the following comprehensive directives:
- To draft and enforce a separate, comprehensive, and integrated national climate change law as soon as possible to address the inadequacies of the existing Environment Protection Act.
- Until such an integrated statutory law is formally enacted, the respondents must immediately, effectively, and robustly implement the provisions and frameworks outlined in the Climate Change Policy 2067, National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) 2010 and Local Adaptation Plan for Action (LAPA) 2011 across the country.
- The Court instructed that the new legislation must explicitly incorporate mechanisms for lowering carbon emissions, reducing mineral fuel consumption, promoting clean and renewable energy tech, mapping climate-vulnerable zones, and establishing a scientific/legal apparatus for evaluating environmental damages and delivering compensation to victims.
Principles Established:
Under the doctrine of Parens Patriae, the state bears the obligation to undertake environmental protection measures in order to adapt and mitigate climate change.
Relevance of the case:
This case stands as a landmark in global climate litigation. It forced a legislative change, directly prompting the enactment of the Environment Protection Act, 2019 and the Forests Act 2019, which finally integrated climate change adaptation and mitigation frameworks into statutory law.
