Introduction
The Shehla Zia Case (1994) is one of the most important and influential cases in Pakistan’s environmental law history. It was a public interest litigation that challenged the construction of an electricity grid station near a residential area on the grounds of potential health risks and hazards. The case addressed various issues, including environmental protection, human rights, public participation, and the precautionary principle.
Background of the Case
The case was initiated by a letter of a petition sent by Ms. Shehla Zia and other residents of Islamabad to the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which gives the Court original jurisdiction to take up any matter concerning the enforcement of fundamental rights of public importance. The petitioners argued that the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), a government agency responsible for power generation and distribution, had violated their constitutional rights by constructing a high-voltage grid station on a designated “green belt” property without their consent and without following proper procedures. They claimed that the grid station would seriously threaten their health and well-being due to the power lines’ electromagnetic fields (EMFs).
The Judgment of the Court
The Supreme Court heard the case as a human rights case and appointed some amicus curiae (friend of the Court) to assist it in examining the scientific evidence on the effects of EMFs on human health. The Court also invited experts from both sides to present their views and opinions.
After reviewing the evidence, the Court found no conclusive or definitive proof that EMFs cause adverse health effects, but there was also no certainty that they were harmless. The Court observed that there was a general trend in scientific research that supports the possibility of negative impacts of EMFs on human health and that many developed countries have taken precautionary measures to regulate and monitor EMF exposure.
The Court then applied the precautionary principle, which states that lack of total scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone taking action to prevent environmental degradation or harm to human health. The Court accepted the petitioners’ argument that this principle was embodied in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, an international instrument that linked environmental protection with human rights.
The Court held that the right to a healthy environment was part of the fundamental right to life and dignity under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution, respectively. The Court interpreted the word “life” broadly to cover all facets of human existence, including all such amenities and facilities that a person is entitled to enjoy with dignity, legally and constitutionally.
However, the Court did not issue a definitive ruling on whether or not to stop the construction of the grid station, as it recognized that it was also essential to balance the rights of citizens with the plans and projects executed by authorities for the welfare, economic progress and prosperity of the country.
Therefore, with the consent of both parties, the Court ordered a review and report of the grid project by an independent engineering company (NESPAK) to suggest alterations and location alternatives. The Court also directed WAPDA to introduce public consultation and objection procedures for all future projects concerning grid stations and power lines.
Furthermore, the Court ordered the government of Pakistan to establish a commission of internationally recognized scientists to review and rule on future grid station projects.
Significance and Impact of the Case
The Shehla Zia Case (1994) is widely regarded as a landmark decision in environmental law in Pakistan for several reasons.
First, it established that environmental protection is a constitutional right and duty in Pakistan and that citizens have standing to challenge any action or omission by authorities that may affect their environment or health.
Second, it adopted an expansive interpretation of the right to life and dignity to include physical existence and quality of life.
Third, it applied the precautionary principle as a guiding rule for decision-making in cases involving scientific uncertainty and potential harm to human health or the environment.
Fourth, it emphasized the need for public participation and transparency in environmental decision-making processes and the importance of considering the views and objections of the affected people.
Fifth, it set a precedent for subsequent environmental cases in Pakistan and influenced the development of environmental jurisprudence in the region and beyond.
Conclusion
The Shehla Zia Case (1994) is a remarkable example of how the judiciary can play a vital role in protecting and promoting environmental rights and justice in Pakistan. The case demonstrates how the Supreme Court applied a progressive and holistic approach to interpreting the Constitution and international law and balanced the interests of different stakeholders in a complex and uncertain situation. The case also shows how the Court used its power and authority to direct the executive and legislative branches to take appropriate measures to ensure the safety and welfare of the people and the environment. The case is a testament to the courage and vision of the petitioners, the amicus curiae, and the judges who made this landmark decision possible.
