|
|
     |
 |
|
|
COMPENDIUM OF SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN ENVIRONMENT RELATED CASES PAKISTANPakistan - Constitutional Rights, Land Use Planning, Precautionary Principle Ms. SHEHLA ZIA and others v. WAPDA IntroductionThe Respondent authority was constructing a grid station in a residential area. The Petitioners who were residents in the vicinity alleged that the electromagnetic field created by the high voltage transmission lines at the grid station would pose a serious health hazard to them and raised the following issues before the Supreme Court. (i) Whether any government agency has a right to endanger the life of citizens by its actions. (ii) Whether Zoning Laws vest rights in citizens which cannot be withdrawn or altered without the citizen's consent. As regards the first issue, the Respondent's position was that the concern over health hazards was totally unfounded. The parties produced a vast body of scientific evidence in support of their respective positions. On the second issue, the Respondents stated that the site had been earmarked as an incidental space which was previously left unutilised along the bank of the river Nallah and was not designated as an open space or green area. It was further stated that the proposed site, was at a level 6 - l0 feet lower than the area where the houses are located, and that the grid station site was at least 40 feet away from the residential area. Legislative FrameworkConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Articles 9, 14 and 184(3). Held(i) The word 'life' has not been defined in the Constitution but it does not mean nor can it be restricted only to the vegetative or animal life or mere existence from conception to death. A wide meaning should be given to the word 'life' to enable a man not only to sustain life, but also to enjoy it. (ii) Where life of citizens is degraded, the quality of life is adversely affected and health hazards are created affecting a large number of people, the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan may grant relief to the extent of stopping such activities which create pollution and environmental degradation. (iii) At present, scientific evidence regarding the possibility of adverse biological effects from exposure to power-frequency fields as well as the possibility of reducing or eliminating such effects, is inconclusive. The remaining question is how the legal system, including both the judiciary and the various regulatory agencies, should respond to this scientific uncertainty. In such a situation, the precautionary principle should be applied. To stick to a particular plan on the basis of old studies or inconclusive research cannot be said to be a policy of prudence and precaution. (iv) One cannot ignore that energy is essential for present-day life, industry, commerce and day-to-day affairs. The more energy that is produced and distributed, the more progress and economic development becomes possible. Therefore, a method should be devised to strike a balance between economic progress and prosperity and to minimise possible hazards. In fact a policy of sustainable development should be adopted. (v) The Court also held that constitutional rights are higher than rights conferred by other laws i.e. municipal law, common law. Therefore a conscientious citizen, aware of the rights vested under the Constitution and alive to the possibility of danger, could invoke Article 184 on behalf of a large number of citizens who cannot make such representations due to poverty, ignorance or any such disability. (ix) The Court refrained from making any order, in view of the inconclusive nature of the evidence placed on record. However, with the consent of both parties the Court appointed NESPAK, as Commissioner, inter alia, to examine and study the scheme employed by WAPDA and report whether there is any likelihood of any hazard or adverse effect on the health of the residents of the locality. Cases CitedMunn v. Illinois (1876) 94 U.S. 113 |
|
Copyright 1999-
© United Nations, All rights reserved. |