Hrdp-Shehla Zia & Ors V WAPDA (1994)

Case
Name
Shehla Zia & Ors v WAPDA
Topic
ENVIRONMENT- Public
entitled to protection from
possible hazards caused by
industrial installations;
international instruments of
persuasive value where signed
INTERNATIONAL
STANDARDS- Public entitled to
protection from possible
hazards caused by industrial
installations; international
instruments of persuasive value
where signed
LIFE- Public entitled to
protection from possible
hazards caused by industrial
installations; international
instruments of persuasive value
where signed
Tribunal
Supreme Court
Country
Pakistan (Asia)
Case
Date
12 Feb 1994
Judge(s) Shah CJ, Akhtar J, Sial J

Resume:
The four petitioners were residents of
an area within which the construction
of a grid station was planned. They
contended that the electromagnetic
field, which would be generated by the
presence of high voltage transmission
lines at the grid station, would pose a
serious health hazard to the residents
such as to infringe their constitutional
right to life.
In appointing a Commissioner to
further examine and report on the
scheme, it was held that:
1.
Although there was a trend by
scientists and scholars in support
of the likelihood of electromagnetic
fields having an adverse effect on
human health, the court prefered
not to give a definite finding upon
such a highly technical subject
bearing in mind that, from the
material produced on record, it
appeared that no definite
conclusions had been drawn.
2.
Where there is a state of
uncertainty, the authorities should
observe the rules of prudence and
precaution by considering first the
welfare and safety of human beings
and the environment and adopting a
policy suitable to obviate the
possible danger or, alternatively, by
taking such precautionary
measures as might ensure safety.
The research and opinion relied
upon by WAPDA had been based on
studies carried out two decades
earlier and was inconclusive and
could not, therefore, be said to be a
policy of prudence and precaution.
3.
The word life could not be
restricted only to the vegetative or
animal life or mere existence from
conception until death. It included
all such amenities and facilities
which a person born in a free
country was entitled to enjoy with
dignity, legally and constitutionally.
Although the word life had not
been defined in the Constitution of
Pakistan or India, the Supreme
Court of India had in 1963 placed

reliance on a decision of the United
States Supreme Court where it was
observed that life meant not merely
the right to the continuance of a
persons animal existence but a
right to the possession of each of
his organs - his arms and legs, etc.
In a later decision it was held that
the right to life included the right to
live with human dignity and all that
goes along with it, namely, the bare
necessities of life such as adequate
nutrition, clothing and shelter and
facilities for reading and writing
(Kharak Singh v. State of UP AIR
1963 SC 1295; Munn v. Illinois (1876)
94 US 113; Francis Corali v. Union
Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746
applied; Olga Tellis and Ors v.
Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR
1986 SC 180; and State of HP v.
Umed Ram Sharma, AIR 1986 SC
847 considered).
4.
Any action taken which may
create hazards of life would be
encroaching upon the personal
rights of the citizen to enjoy life

according to the law. For the
purposes of the present
controversy, a person was entitled
to protection of law from being
exposed to hazards of
electromagnetic fields or any other
such hazards which might be due to
installation and construction of any
grid station, any factory, power
station or similar installation.
5.
In circumstances such as these,
a balance needed to be struck
between the rights of citizens on the
one hand and plans executed by the
power authorities for the welfare,
economic progress and prosperity
of the country on the other. Before
passing any final order, a
Commissioner was to be appointed
to examine and study the scheme,
and to report on the likelihood of
any hazard. The petitioners would
be at liberty to send any necessary
documents to the Commissioner.
Per Curiam:
While international agreements could

not be implemented as law nor bind
any party unless enacted into domestic
law, the fact remained that they had a
persuasive value and demanded
respect. Pakistan was a signatory to
the 1992 Rio Declaration concerning
the environment. In this field every
nation had to cooperate and
contribute, since damage to the
environment is an international
problem recognising no frontiers.
Lawyers For the Petitioners: Dr Parvez
Hasan
For the Respondent: Tariq
Malik (Project Director
WAPDA)
Citations PLD 1994 SC 693; [1996] 1
CHRLD 83

Hrdp-Shehla Zia & Ors V WAPDA (1994)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hrdp-Shehla Zia & Ors V WAPDA (1994)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hrdp-Shehla Zia & Ors V WAPDA (1994)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case

Shehla Zia & Ors v WAPDA

Judge(s) Shah CJ, Akhtar J, Sial J

Court of India had in 1963 placed

rights of the citizen to enjoy life

While international agreements could

You might also like