The Pakistan Supreme Court's Use of Suo Motu Actions in Environmental Cases

• Date: 01 April 2011

41 ELR 10326 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 4-2011

The Pakistan Supreme Court’s

Use of Suo Motu Actions in

Environmental Cases

by Aamina Islam

Aamina Islam is an Advocate in the High Court of Pakistan.

Sustainable development requires that “exploitation of

resources, the direction of investments, the orientation

of technological development and institutional changes

are all in harmony [to] enhance both current and future

potential to meet human needs and aspirations.”4 In the

absence of sustainable development, the inevitable result

is “resources exhausted, ecosystem collapses; species disap-

pear, and people’s lives, health, livelihoods, and their very

survival are threatened.”5

is Article discusses the legal basis of the suo motu6

cause of action that has been recognized by the Pakistan

Supreme Court in environmental matters, including a brief

history of the evolution of the application of this cause of

action with respect to environmental issues, the type of

issues that have been addressed under it, why the Court felt

the need for application of this cause of action, and how

availability of suo motu relief has changed industry’s a nd

regulators’ formerly lackadaisical attitudes toward envi-

ronmental impacts in Pakistan. Further, this A rticle urges

Pakistan to adopt a constitutional provision acknowledg-

ing the right of its people to a healthy environment, to

provide a clear mandate to the government to protect the

environment and natural resources, and to form the basis

of environmental justice for plaintis harmed by pollution.

I. Current Environmental Regulation in

Pakistan

A. Environmental Protection Act of 1997

Pakistan is an important geopolitical country that is rich

in cultural, natural, and human resources. Rapid urban-

ization and industria lization, coupled with a population

explosion, has resulted in sanitation, health, and environ-

mental challenges and has led to an ecological and eco-

nomical imbalance. e government of Pakistan, in order

4. David Hunter, e Goal of Sustainable Development, I E-

  P L 102 (Foundation Press 2001).

5. Hassan & Azfar, supra note 3, at 218-19.

6. “Suo moto” is Latin for “on its own motion.”

“If the motto ‘and justice for all’ becomes ‘and justice for

those who can aord it,’ we t hreaten the very underpin-

nings of our social contract.”1

Natural resources, such as clean air and water, are public

resources shared by all, yet owned by no one in particular.

Since public resources are not sold in a free marketplace,

they have no free market value that takes into account

factors such as scarcity and environmental degradation.

However, if such public goods are carelessly used with-

out any rules governing their use, such resources inevi-

tably succumb to the “tragedy of the commons,”2 under

which resources that are free or available to everyone may

be ruined by abuse or overuse. To avoid or mitigate this,

some level of control will be necessary through government

planning, by implementation of rules and regulations, or

by good governance.

e state of natural resources in Pakistan today illus-

trates the very real ramications of the tragedy of the

commons. A drastic increase in the level of human activ-

ity in recent years has resulted in environmental devasta-

tion that threatens human health, safety, and survival. In

addition to addressing the immediate hazards of environ-

mental degradation, Pakistan must recognize that natu-

ral resources are not the property of Pakistan alone, but

have a global dimension and must be used in a sustainable

manner. Long-term environmental sustainability necessi-

tates preserving environmental assets or, at a minimum,

not depleting them. “Development that does not respect

nature rebounds on man.”3

1. Chief Justice Ronald George, California Supreme Court, Annual State of

Judiciary Speech (2001).

2. H. Scott Gordon, e Economic eory of a Common Property Resource: e

Fishery, 62 J. P. E. 124 (1954); Garrett Hardin, e Tragedy of the

Commons, 162 S. 1243 (1968).

3. Mahesh Chander Mehta, Making the Law Work for the Environment, 2 A

P. J. E. L. 349, 349 (1997); see also Parvez Hassan & Azim Azfar, Se-

curing Environmental Rights rough Public Interest Litigation in South Asia,

22 V. E. L.J. 215, 218-19 (2004).

Editors’ Note: An earlier version of this Article appeared as Suo

Motu Actions by Supreme Court in Environmental Cases in 8

C. L. D 159 (2009).

Copyright © 2011 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.