Está en la página 1de 3

ZIA v WAPDA

FACTS:
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 petitioners 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.
However, in an effort to strike a balance between the rights of citizens and the plans that are executed
by the authorities for the welfare, economic progress and prosperity of the country, the Court did not
make a definitive ruling on the pending construction of the grid station, but, with the consent of both
parties, ordered a review and report of grid project by the National Engineering Services of Pakistan
(NESPAK) to suggest alterations and location alternatives. The decision further directed the
government of Pakistan to establish a commission of internationally known and recognized scientists
to review and rule on future grid station projects. In addition, the Court ordered WAPDA to immediately
introduce public consultation and objection procedures for all projects concerning grid stations and
power lines.
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. (Interview by email, with Ahmad
Rafay Alam, a leading environmental lawyer and activist in Pakistan, August 28th, 2015). A
supplemental, if not consequential, outcome of this case(link is external) 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(link is external) 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. (Interview
by email, with Ahmad Rafay Alam, a leading environmental lawyer and activist in Pakistan, August
28th, 2015). 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 foundations(link is external) 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(link is external) (decided on 12th July, 1994) that the
right to have water free from pollution and contamination is a right to life itself.
Finally, a vital contribution(link is external) of this case which was accepted for consideration by the
Court under Article 184 (3), has been setting a precedent which allows for much easier access to the
public to approach the superior courts and the subordinate courts on environment related issues.
FAROOQUE V BANGLADESH

This case dealt with vehicle pollution and the corresponding problems related to environment
and health. The petitioners sought directions upon the respondents to take all adequate and
effective measures to check pollutions caused due to the emissions of hazardous smokes from
motor vehicles and the use of audible signaling devices giving unduly loud noise, to ensure that
the motor cycles obtained certificates of fitness, to set a Bangladesh standard for petroleum
ensuring the reductions of toxic and hazardous constituents from the same and to require all
imported motor vehicles to be fitted with catalytic converters. The case of the petition was that
the environment and ecology of Bangladesh were being continuously threatened by the
emissions of hazardous smokes and noises in the air from faulty and unfit motor vehicles
lacking road worthiness as required by law. As a result, an unhealthy environment had been
prevailing at many places. The major cities of the country were exposed to environmental
hazards, the most threatening urban center being Dhaka. The air pollution of Dhaka City
exceeded all acceptable limits causing serious health hazards to its inhabitants and irreparable
damage to the physical environment and ecology. The court noted that the current procedure of
granting fitness certificate by the respondent was based on human judgment which was subject
to error and corruption although the technology of ensuring fitness through automation was
easily available and such measures had been adopted almost in every country. Many of the
vehicles used by the respondents and other Government agencies did not have fitness
certificate as per records. The degree of vehicular pollution was further aggravated by the
quality of petroleum products used by the vehicles containing various constituents which were
dangerous to health and could cause serious diseases like cancer. The respondents contended
that the Government had taken some decisions to control the air pollution of Dhaka City from
faulty vehicles both from emission of hazardous smokes and incessant use of high noise
making horns. The court, however, felt that some urgent preventive measures were necessary
to halt environmental pollution and degradation of Dhaka City. Accordingly, the following
directions were given, among others: To enforce restrictions against the use of hydraulic and
other loud horns; to implement the decision of the respondents that all motor vehicles be fitted
with catalytic converter and diesel particulate filter; to set a Bangladesh standard for petroleum
in accordance with the international standards ensuring the reduction and removal of toxic and
hazardous constituents from the same; and to phase out a certain type of polluting wheeler and
to replace it with cleaner transport alternatives.

También podría gustarte