## Facts

- Residents of Sector F-7, Islamabad, objected to WAPDA’s planned construction of a 132 kV grid station and high-voltage transmission lines in a residential area, partly on land designated as a green belt.
- Petitioners alleged the project would expose residents to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), creating health risks, and that siting the facility on green-belt land violated planning/zoning protections.
- The matter reached the Supreme Court as a human-rights/public-interest petition invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction for questions of fundamental rights of public importance.
- Scientific and expert material presented to the Court was divided and inconclusive as to the degree and likelihood of harm from EMFs.
- WAPDA argued the project was necessary for public welfare and reliable electricity supply, that it was safe, and that no fundamental right had been violated because harm was speculative.

## Issues

1. Whether a public authority may proceed with actions that could endanger citizens’ life and health without effective legal protection.
2. Whether constitutional protections for life and human dignity encompass a right to a clean and healthy environment and protection from environmental/health hazards such as EMFs.
3. Whether, given scientific uncertainty, the Court should restrain, modify, or condition the project and require procedural safeguards (independent review and public participation).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the petition was maintainable as a matter of public importance involving fundamental rights.
- The Court interpreted the constitutional right to life broadly to include quality of life and conditions necessary to live with dignity, including a clean atmosphere and unpolluted environment, read together with the constitutional protection of human dignity and privacy of the home.
- The Court declined to make a definitive factual finding that the grid station would violate fundamental rights because the technical evidence on EMF risk was inconclusive.
- With the parties’ consent, the Court appointed an independent engineering body (NESPAK) to review the plan and propose economically feasible alterations regarding construction and location to address health and environmental concerns.
- The Court directed the federal government to establish an independent scientific oversight body whose opinion/permission would be required before approving new grid stations.
- The Court required that, for future grid stations and transmission lines, WAPDA give public notice through mass media, invite objections from affected persons, and finalize plans only after considering those objections.

## Legal Principles

- The constitutional “right to life” is not limited to mere survival; it includes all facets of human existence and amenities necessary to live with dignity.
- Read with the constitutional protection of human dignity, the right to life includes protection against environmental degradation and exposure to health hazards, supporting a justiciable right to a clean and healthy environment.
- In public-interest matters affecting fundamental rights, the court may relax procedural rigidity and entertain petitions to protect persons who may be unable to litigate due to practical barriers.
- Where there is a credible threat of serious environmental or health harm, lack of full scientific certainty does not bar protective measures; precautionary, preventive, and process-based remedies may be ordered.
- Courts may balance fundamental rights with public-utility development by imposing independent review, scientific oversight, and participatory procedures rather than issuing an immediate project-wide prohibition.

## Conclusion

The Court treated environmental quality and protection from health hazards as part of the constitutional right to life and dignity, and—because EMF risk evidence was uncertain—allowed the project to proceed only subject to independent technical review, future scientific oversight, and mandatory public notice-and-objection procedures for similar infrastructure.


Shehla Zia v. Water & Power Dev. Auth. (WAPDA), PLD 1994 S.C. 693 (Pak. 1994)