This case involved citizens filing a petition with the Supreme Court expressing apprehension about the construction of a new grid station in a residential area. The Court examined whether government agencies could endanger citizens' lives through their actions without consent, and whether zoning laws gave citizens rights that could not be altered without consent. Considering the potential health impacts, the Court appointed a commission to examine the plans and suggest alterations to address citizens' complaints. The Court emphasized the precautionary principle and citizens' fundamental right to life under the Constitution, which includes protection from health hazards. It directed the relevant authority to provide public notice and hearings for any future grid station projects.

1. Submitted By Ahmed Bhatti
Submitted To Dr Ghufran
Roll No 19108001-016
Department School of Law
Semester Fifth(5th
)
Program LL. b (5 Years)
Course Title Constitutional Law
Assignment No 2
Topic Ms. Shella Zia v. WAPDA
Case Law
Date 20-10-2021

2. SHEHLAZIACASE
P L D 1994 Supreme Court 693
Present: Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Saleem Akhtar and Manzoor Hussain
Sial
Ms. SHEHLA ZIA and others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Verses WAPDA ‑‑‑
Respondent
Human Rights Case No.15‑K of 1992, heard on 12th February, 1994.
(Environmental pollution ‑‑‑ Installation of Grid Station/cutting of trees).
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
Citizens had apprehension against the construction of a grid station in a
residential area and sent a letter to the Supreme Court for consideration as a
human rights case. The Court found that the letter raised two questions:
Namely, whether any Government agency had the right to endanger the life
of citizens by its actions without the latter’s consent; and secondly, whether
zoning laws vested rights in citizens which cannot be withdrawn or altered
without the citizens’ consent.
Considering the gravity of the matter which might have involved and affected
the life and health of the citizens at large, notice was issued to the Authority.
The Court emphasized that the trend of the opinion of scientists and scholars
was that the likelihood of adverse effects of electromagnetic fields on human
health could not be ruled out. The subject was highly technical, so the
Supreme Court declined to give a definite finding particularly because the
experts and technical evidence produced was inconclusive. It observed that
under such circumstances, the balance should be struck between the rights of
the citizens and also the plans which were executed by the Authority for the
welfare, economic progress and prosperity of the country.
If there were threats of serious danger, effective measures should be taken
to control it and should not be postponed merely on the ground that the
scientific research and studies were uncertain and not conclusive. One should
not wait for conclusive finding as it might take very long to find it, so

3. preventive and precautionary measures should be taken straightaway
(Precautionary Principle).
The Court appointed a Commission to examine the plan and the proposals of
the Authority in the light of the complaint made by the citizens. It should
submit its report and suggest any alteration or addition which may be
economically possible in relation to the construction and location of the grid
station.
The Court then examined Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Article 9
of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty
save in accordance with law. The word “life” is very significant as it covers all
facts of human existence. The word “life” has not been defined in the
Constitution but it does not mean nor can be restricted only to the vegetative
or animal life or mere existence from conception to death. Life includes all
such amenities and facilities which a person born in a free country is entitled
to enjoy with dignity, legally and constitutionally. A person is entitled to
protection of law from being exposed to hazards of electromagnetic fields or
any other such hazards which may be due to installation and construction of
any grid station, any factory, power station or such like installations. Under
the common law a person whose right of easement, property or health is
adversely affected by any act of omission or commission of a third person in
the neighborhood or at a far-off place, he is entitled to seek an injunction and
also claim damages, but the Constitutional rights are higher than the legal by
law he its municipal law or the common law. Such a danger as depicted, the
possibility of which cannot be excluded, is bound to affect a large number of
people who may suffer from it unknowingly because of lack of awareness,
information and education and also because such sufferance is silent and fatal
and most of the people who would be residing near, under or at a dangerous
distance of the grid station or such installation do not know that they are
facing any risk or are likely to suffer by such risk. Therefore, Article 184 can
be invoked because a large number of citizens throughout the country cannot
make such representation and may not like to make it due to ignorance,
poverty and disability. Only some conscientious citizens aware of their rights
and the possibility of danger come forward. The word “life” in terms of Article
9 of the Constitution is so wide that the danger and encroachment complained
of would impinge fundamental right of a citizen. In this view of the matter the
petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution c.: Pakistan, 1973 is
maintainable.The word “life” in the Constitution has not been used in a limited
manner. A wide meaning should be given to enable a man not only to sustain
life but to enjoy it.
Article 14 provides that the dignity of man and subject to law the privacy of
home shall be

4. inviolable. The fundamental right to preserve and protect the dignity of man
under Article 14 is unparalleled and could be found only in few Constitutions
of the world.
The Authority was directed that in future prior to installing or constructing any
grid station, it would issue public notice in newspapers, radio and television
inviting objections, if any, by affording public hearing to the person filing
objections.
CASELAWS RELATEDTOARTICLE 9 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN
P L D 2007 KARACHI 116
Imad Hussain verses Province of Sindh through Secretary
to
Government of Sindh
It was held in this case that the Constitution envisages establishment of a
welfare state according to the norms of the modern civilized society and,
therefore, its provisions, especially the provisions about fundamental rights,
cannot be interpreted in a pedantic way. The term “life” used in Article 9 is of
very wide importance and includes all those rights which are necessary for
living a quality life befitting human dignity. It cannot be limited to mere
vegetative or animal life. Viewed from all angles, it is abundantly clear that
right to education is a fundamental right covered by Articles 9, 14, 18, 20 and
37(c) of the Constitution of Pakistan.
2001 YLR 1139
Shehri and others verses Province of Sindh
It was held in this case that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution
includes the right to live in a clean and healthy environment (Article 9 of the
Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in
accordance with law). It is, therefore, the duty of the legislature to enact laws
and of the Government to enforce them in a manner which promotes the
achievement of high intellectual and spiritual goals and happiness in life by
the citizens.

5. P L D 2007 KARACHI 544
Faisal verses The State
It was held in this case that right of access to justice also comes within the
scope of Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan which means that the accused
should have a fair trial.
P L D 2007 LAHORE 403
Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and 4 Others verses Government of
Punjab, through Housing, Physical and Environmental PLN
It was held in this case that perseverance and protection of dignity of man is
a fundamental right of a citizen, guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution, 1973. Constitution of 1973 vide Article 9 protects life of a person.
The cases where life of citizen is degraded, qualify of life is adversely affected
and health hazards are created affecting large number of people, amounts to
deprivation of life, which above referred articles prohibits.
1998 CLC 1099
Mrs. Nasreen Riaz and another versus Lahore Development
Authority
Article 9 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 guarantees
a fundamental right of a person not to be deprived of life and liberty save in
accordance with law. Right to life includes 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 shelterover the head and facilities forreading
and writing, etc. The minimum needs of existence also flow from the right to
life.