Ms. Shehla Zia v. WAPDA, PLD 1994 SC 693

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

Ms. Shehla Zia v.

WAPDA, PLD 1994 SC 693

This public interest litigation came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan when petitioners
challenged the construction of a nearby electricity grid station due to potential health risks
and hazards. The case addresses a range of issues including, environmental protection, and
an expansive interpretation of the right to life.
Date of the Ruling: 
Feb 12 1994

Forum: 
Supreme Court of Pakistan

Type of Forum: 
Domestic

Summary: 
A coalition of residents sent a letter of petition to the Supreme Court to challenge the Water
and Power Development Authority's (WAPDA) construction of an electricity grid station in
their neighborhood, on designated "green belt" property. The Court heard the matter as a
human rights case, as Article 184 (3) of the Pakistan Constitution provides original jurisdiction
to the Supreme Court to take up and determine any matter concerning the enforcement of
fundamental rights of public importance. The Court considered the case to be maintainable
under Article 184 (3) since the danger and encroachment alleged were such as to violate the
constitutional right to life when interpreted expansively.
The residents argued that the high-voltage grid station would pose a health risk and potential
hazard to local residents. Ultimately, the court determined the scientific evidence
inconclusive, while observing the general trend supports that electromagnetic fields have
negative effects on human health. The Court accepted the petitioner’s argument that it
should adopt the precautionary principle set out in the 1992 Rio Declaration on the
Environment and Development, the first international instrument that linked environment
protection with human rights, whereby the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used
as a reason to prevent environmental degradation. Thus, it was held that the right to a
healthy environment was part of the fundamental right to life and right to dignity, under
Article 9 and 14 of the Pakistan Constitution, respectively. The Court ruled that the word "life"
covers all facets of human existence, all such amenities and facilities that a person is entitled
to enjoy with dignity, legally and constitutionally.  
However, in an effort to strike a balance between the rights of citizens and the plans that are
executed by the authorities for the welfare, economic progress and prosperity of the country,
the Court did not make a definitive ruling on the pending construction of the grid station, but,
with the consent of both parties, ordered a review and report of grid project by the National
Engineering Services of Pakistan (NESPAK) to suggest alterations and location alternatives.
The decision further directed the government of Pakistan to establish a commission of
internationally known and recognized scientists to review and rule on future grid station
projects. In addition, the Court ordered WAPDA to immediately introduce public consultation
and objection procedures for all projects concerning grid stations and power lines.
Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes:
Following the decision, NESPAK, as directed, conducted an assessment of the grid project and
submitted that sufficient mitigation measures were in place to render any potential adverse
impacts negligible. Based on this, the grid station was permitted to be built. (Interview by email,
with Ahmad Rafay Alam, a leading environmental lawyer and activist in Pakistan, August 28th,
2015). A supplemental, if not consequential, outcome of this case(link is external) was the
passage of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA) 1997. The enactment of PEPA
1997 was followed(link is external) by several environmental policies and initiatives.

Groups involved in the case:


International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), National Engineering Services of
Pakistan (NESPAK)

Significance of the Case:


This landmark case expanded the fundamental rights to life and dignity by interpreting these
rights to encompass the right to a healthy environment. This decision is particularly significant as
there are no specific provisions(link is external) in the Pakistani Constitution regarding
environmental protection. In relation to environmental law in Pakistan, it is important that the
case established the application of the precautionary principle where there is a threat to
environmental rights, and emphasized the positive obligations of the State in protecting the right
to a clean and healthy environment. (Interview by email, with Ahmad Rafay Alam, a leading
environmental lawyer and activist in Pakistan, August 28th, 2015). Furthermore, the ruling placed
a notice and comment restriction on government agencies in regards to projects that could
potentially pose a public risk. This case is also noteworthy, “because it laid down the
foundations(link is external) of all future public interest litigation brought before courts for
environmental protection.” To cite just one example, following this case, the Supreme Court,
citing the Zia decision, found in the Salt Miners Case(link is external) (decided on 12th July,
1994) that the right to have water free from pollution and contamination is a right to life itself.

Finally, a vital contribution(link is external) of this case which was accepted for consideration by
the Court under Article 184 (3), has been setting a precedent which allows for much easier
access to the public to approach the superior courts and the subordinate courts on environment
related issues.

You might also like