Environmental Law in Pakistan - IUCN

Relying on the earlier Shehla Zia case, the Supreme Court issues a number of directions to theconcerned parties and departments. It orders the mouth of the mine to be shifted, within fourmonths, to a safe distance from the stream and reservoir so that that these water sources are notpolluted by mine debris, carbonised materials and waste water from the mines. The Court appointsa five-member commission to ensure that these orders are carried out.6.2.4 Shehla Zia and others v. WAPDA (HR No. 15-K of 1992),PLD 1994 SC 693In this landmark case, the Supreme Court prevents, as an interim measure applicable to date, theconstruction of a high-voltage grid station in the green belt of a residential locality in Islamabad.On behalf of residents of the area in which WAPDA proposed to construct the grid station, a letteris sent to the Supreme Court raising two questions: whether any government agency has the rightto endanger the life of citizens by its actions without the latter’s consent, and whether zoning lawsvest rights in citizens which cannot be withdrawn or altered without the citizens’ consent.Since conclusive evidence of the effect of electro-magnetic fields on human health is not available,the Supreme Court does not make a definitive ruling. Rather, the Court invokes the principles ofprudence and precaution in issuing a notice to WAPDA, agreed by both parties, appointing acommissioner to study WAPDA’s plan and report on the likelihood of any adverse effects on thehealth of residents of the locality and, if necessary, to suggest any alteration or addition which maybe economically possible for construction and location of the grid station. The Court also directs thegovernment to establish an authority or commission composed of internationally recognised,impartial scientists, whose opinion or permission should be obtained before any new grid station isallowed to be constructed. The Court directs that in the future, prior to installing or constructing anygrid station or transmission line, WAPDA must issue public notices in the newspapers, and on radioand television, inviting objections, and may only finalise the plan after considering such objections.The Supreme Court holds that the right to a clean environment is the fundamental right of all citizensof Pakistan, covered by the “right to life” and the “right to dignity” under Articles 9 and 14 of theConstitution, respectively. Article 9 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived oflife or liberty save in accordance with law. The Supreme Court rules that the word “life” covers allfacets of human existence. Although the word has not been defined in the Constitution, the courtholds that it does not mean, and cannot be restricted to mean, vegetative or animal life alone, nordoes it mean mere existence from conception to death. The Court holds that life includes all suchamenities and facilities that a person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy with dignity, legallyand constitutionally. The Supreme Court also accepts the importance of the Rio Declaration on theEnvironment and Development, and the precautionary principle included in its Principle 15.6.2.5 Human Rights Case No. 9-K/1992 (unreported case before theSupreme Court of Pakistan)In 1992, the Karachi Administration Women’s Welfare Society writes a letter to the Supreme Courtstating that the use of open storm water drains for the disposal of sewage, and the contaminationfrom sewage as a result of damaged drains and pipes, constitute a violation of the fundamentalrights of the people living in the area.The Supreme Court converts the letter into a human rights case and constitutes a commissionwhich reports that the complaints in the petition are valid. The Court calls for remedial measures tobe taken, including the repair of the water and sewerage pipes. 7306Processes andInstitutionsEnvironmentalLaw in PakistanFederal