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.
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 was the passage of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA) 1997. The enactment of PEPA 1997 was followed by several environmental policies and initiatives.
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. (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 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.
Finally, a vital contribution 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.
(Updated August 2015)
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), National Engineering Services of Pakistan (NESPAK)