Ms. Shehla Zia and Others v. Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA)

Supreme Court of Pakistan

Date of Hearing / Judgment:

 12.02.1994

Judges Present:

 Nasim Hasan Shah, C.J., Saleem Akhtar, and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.

Case Title:

 Ms. Shehla Zia and Others v. Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA)

(Human Rights Case No. 15-K of 1992)

Background and Facts

The petition arose from a letter sent by four residents of Street No. 35, F-6/1, Islamabad including Ms. Shehla Zia, to the Supreme Court, objecting to the construction of a WAPDA grid station in their residential green belt. The citizens feared that electromagnetic radiation from high-voltage power lines would pose serious health risks, particularly to children and vulnerable residents, while also damaging the environment and violating zoning laws.

Treating the letter as a human rights petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, the Court sought WAPDA’s response. The Authority argued that the site was lawfully designated and posed no proven health threat, citing studies suggesting inconclusive evidence of harm. In contrast, the petitioners relied on international scientific research indicating potential links between electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and diseases such as leukemia. The case thus raised a fundamental question: whether a government agency may endanger citizens’ lives through its projects without their consent, and whether citizens’ environmental and zoning rights fall within constitutional protection under Articles 9 and 14.

Legal Issues

1. Whether Article 184(3) empowered the Supreme Court to intervene in matters involving potential health and environmental hazards affecting the public at large.
2. Whether the State and its agencies have a constitutional duty to prevent environmental degradation and safeguard citizens from uncertain but potential risks to health and life.
3. How precautionary and sustainable development principles should be applied in Pakistan’s legal framework when scientific evidence about environmental risks remains inconclusive.

Arguments Advanced

Petitioners’ side (Dr. Parvez Hasan):

The petitioners contended that the grid station’s location in a residential green belt endangered citizens’ lives and violated their right to a clean, safe environment under Article 9 (Right to Life) and Article 14 (Dignity of Man). They relied on the Rio Declaration (1992) particularly Principle 15 on the precautionary approach and international studies linking EMFs to cancer. They urged the Court to recognize environmental protection as part of the constitutional right to life and to direct WAPDA to adopt safety measures or relocate the project.

Respondent’s side (WAPDA):

WAPDA maintained that similar stations existed safely in major cities and that no credible evidence linked EMFs with health hazards. It cited technical data from the Electric Power Research Institute (USA), asserting that electromagnetic intensity at the site fell within safe limits. The Authority argued that national development and economic progress   Prompted such infrastructure, and that the Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 184(3) to intervene in administrative and scientific matters.

Judgment and Reasoning

Justice Saleem Akhtar, delivering the judgment, expanded the constitutional interpretation of life under Article 9 to encompass all facets of human existence, including the right to live in a clean, pollution-free environment. The Court held that the “right to life” is not confined to mere physical survival but includes the right to enjoy life with dignity, safety, and health. It also connected Article 14’s protection of human dignity with environmental well-being, noting that degradation of one inevitably diminishes the other.

Recognizing that scientific studies on EMFs were inconclusive, the Court invoked the precautionary principle, emphasizing that preventive measures should be taken even in the absence of definitive proof of harm. It stated: “Prevention is better than cure… one should not wait for conclusive findings as it may take ages.” The Court stressed balancing progress with safety advocating a policy of sustainable development that promotes economic growth without compromising public health.

The Court appointed NESPAK as a commission to review WAPDA’s plans and suggest modifications to ensure safety. It directed that in the future, WAPDA must issue public notices and invite objections before installing grid stations, and recommended the creation of an independent environmental commission to assess health and environmental risks before similar projects proceed. The case thus marked the first judicial articulation of environmental rights as fundamental rights in Pakistan.

Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693) is Pakistan’s foundational environmental law case, where the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the right to a clean and healthy environment as part of the right to life and dignity under Articles 9 and 14. It established judicial acceptance of public interest litigation under Article 184(3) for environmental protection and imported the precautionary and sustainable development principles from international law into Pakistani constitutional jurisprudence.

The judgment reshaped environmental governance, compelling public authorities to consider health and ecological impacts in planning decisions. Its legacy endures as a cornerstone of environmental rights litigation in Pakistan. bridging constitutional law, administrative responsibility, and human rights protection.