Article 9: Right to Life All the judgements from Shehla Zia case till ongoing 2022 by the

Superior Courts. Judgements by the Supreme Court of India, US, UK realting to Right to
life

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

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

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.  
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. A supplemental, if
not consequential, outcome of this case 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 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.
 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 foundaion 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  (decided on 12th July, 1994) that the right to have water free from pollution and
contamination is a right to life itself.