SUO MOTU ACTIONS BY SUPREME COURT IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES

SUO MOTU ACTIONS BY SUPREME COURT IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES <!--[if gte mso 10]> SUO MOTU ACTIONS BY SUPREME COURT IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES By Aamina Islam, Advocate, Lahore "If the motto 'and justice for all' becomes 'and justice for those who cart afford it', we threaten the very underpinnings of our social contract"1. Natural resources, such as clean air and water, being the public goods are shared by all yet owned by no one. Since public goods are not marketed, and are free, no price signals indicate scarcity and environmental degradation. However, if such public goods are carelessly used without any rules governing their use; it is the tragedy of commons2. Pakistan today is unfortunately, affected by an undeniable horrendous reality of an increase in scale of human activity in comparison to limits of what earth can support resulting in menacing environment. Natural resources have become global property and are advisable to use in a sustainable manner. Environmental sustainability requires maintaining environmental assets or at least not depleting them. "Development that does not respect nature rebounds on man3." For sustainable development, it is required 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 aspirations4". In the absence of sustainable development, "resources [get] exhausted, ecosystem collapses; species disappear, and people's lives, health, livelihoods, and their very survival are threatened5." 1. Chief Justice Ronald George California Supreme Court, Annual "State of Judiciary" Speech, 2001, <http://www.equaljusticelibrarv> org.cnchost.com/notablequotes.asp?category=2 action=2, accessed on 23rd August, 2007, 2. H.Scott Gordon, The Economic Theory of common Property Research: The fishery 62J. Political Econ 124(1954), quoted in International Environmental Law and Policy at 105. 3. Parvez Hassan and Azim Azfar, Securing Environmental Rights through Public Interest Litigation in South Asia;, LEXSEE 22 VA ENVTL. LJ.215 at 3. 4. The Goal of Sustainable Development, International Environmental Law and Policy at 102. 5. Parvez Hassan and Azim Azfar, supra note 3 at 3. It is an admitted fact that environmental law by nature has its global aspect. Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997 (hereinafter called "PEPA") in its preamble. provides adequately for the protection, 'conservation, rehabilitation, and improvement of the environment for the prevention and control of pollution, and promotion of sustainable development6. There is also a provision under section 9 on creation of Provincial Sustainable Developments to assist in designing the projects to protect, conserve, rehabilitate and improve the environment. PEPA for its enforcement also provides coercive and punitive measures, but lack of environmental education and awareness has forced people to consider PEPA as being "against" them rather "for" them7. For economic development and even in the presence of PEPA we are ignorantly continuously disrupting the environment. In one of the heart rendering incidents (as reported in The Daily Jang dated 19-11-20068 a multinational paint manufacturing company dumped toxic material in a graveyard in Orangi Town, Karachi, injuring as many as 14 children on 5th November, 20068. "I have been asked to keep quiet" Statement by Director General (DG) Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) Abdul Malik Ghouri9. Mr Ghouri did collect samples of the toxic material, and notices were issued under PEPA to the accused responsible factory for the heinous crime under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 199710, but the powerful industrial lobby was successful in hushing up the case by approaching and influencing the families of the affected children and SEPA11. 6. PEPA defines Sustainable Development - under section 2(xiii), "development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their needs." 7. Nganwa Kamugasha, Special Concerns in Developing Countries: Developing institutional and legal capabilities for dealing with environment in sub Saharan Africa. 47. 8. Shahid Hussain, Maarauders Strike Again, http://www.jang.com.pk/ thenews/nov2006-weekly/nos-19-11-2006/kol.htm, accessed on 10th August, 2007. 9. Id. At 1. 10. The Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 under section 112, explicitly prohibits discharge or emission of any effluent or waste or air pollution or noise in an amount, concentration or level which is in excess of the National Environmental Quality Standards or, where applicable. In enforcing section 11, the Act states that whoever contravenes or fails to comply with the said provision of the Act is liable to punishment with fine, which may extend to one million rupees. 11. Shahid Hussain Id. At 1. The above statement by DG, a top official of the environmental agency, is indicative of his utter helplessness. In another similar incident of toxic waste dumping, the acting DG of SEPA, Dr. Iqbal Saeed Khan, who lodged an FIR against the alleged culprits and sealed their factory, was swiftly transferred and made an "officer on special duty" by the well entrenched bureaucracy. The impotency, omission, and habitual neglect of official duties have resulted in failure of the government in planning and execution of several ongoing mega developmental projects without adequate considerations to the natural environment. "[Likely], in a situation where the [policy makers are the perpetrators] themselves, recourse to the administration becomes [futile] and the affected people turn to the defensive mechanisms afforded by the Courts."12 12. Parvez Hassan and Azim Azfar, Supra Note 3, at 4. The executive and legislative branches of the government failed in giving priority to environmental concern as Pakistan is suffering from the common ailment of state repression, governmental lawlessness, and administrative defiance. The reason behind such instability is due to lack of implementation of PEPA, bleak control by the impotent agencies regarding its enforcement, lack of public awareness as to its existence, defective complaint procedure for an aggrieved person to follow, improper functioning of some of the environmental tribunals and environmental magistrates, irregular Pakistan Environmental Protection Council, the non publishing of the National Environmental Report by PEPA, the lack of regular ambient air quality standards, stringent National Environmental Quality Standards which are difficult for industry to achieve, and lack of trained and motivated specified personal in the provincial EPAs. This background, glumly justifies evolving Judicial Activism in Pakistan, as mentioned below. Unfortunately, Pakistan's Constitution unlike Indian Constitution is silent on environmental protection'. The only reference to environment is found in a schedule to Constitution, that provides "environmental protection and ecology" as a concurrent subject which can be legislated by both federal and provincial government. India has taken the, bold step of including environmental protection and rights in its Constitution firstly by recognizing to include right to a healthful environment; secondly, State undertaking to protect and improve the environment in safeguarding forest and wildlife of the country; and lastly, duty on citizens to improve the natural environment.13 Isn't it about time something is done? Owing to silence of Pakistan's Constitution regarding environmental strengthening, the Courts had to delve in deeply into the Constitution to develop jurisprudence for sustainable development in protection of the environmental fundamental rights. In order to fill up such vacuum, the judicial system provides the concept of Judicial Review; "whereby the acts, decisions, and omissions of authorities and bodies performing legal function, affecting the fundamental rights of the individual are challenged in the Courts."14 Power of Judicial Review "extends in the absence of legislation, causing the non availability of remedy thus provide a lucid pitch for the judges to apply their own sense of wisdom and this extension of muscle by the judges is often termed as Judicial Activism."15 In comparison to the Judicial Activism is a concept known as Judicial Restraint, which denotes that the [judges] should not embark upon the issues which are 'not before them or which are yet to arise. They should not interfere into the affairs where they don't have full picture of the events before them. In consequence of the continuous degradation of the environmental conditions it was required to take remedial action in the form of Judicial Activism. The Judicial Activism in the form of Public Interest Litigation and suo motu actions by the Court has helped in shaping and providing relief to the common citizens. 13. Armin Rosencranz and Shiraz Rustomjee, Citizens' Right to a Healthful Environment, 25 Envtl. Policy and L.324, 1(1995). 14. Malik Qamar Afzal, Judicial Review: A Study of Judicial Activism vis-a-vis Judicial Restraint, PLD 2006, Journal 67. 15. Profession Syed Mushtaq Hussain, public Interest Litigations P1 n 1994 Journal 5. This paper traces the Constitutional and legal basis of suo motu action of Supreme Court in environmental matters, evolution, kind of issues that have come up under it; a brief discussion as to why such an action was necessary; what could have been the environmental impact if such actions were not taken. Finally, the decisions of the Supreme Court on some of those cases and their outcome will also be dwelled upon in this paper. Pakistan's Constitution is built on the principle of trichotomy of powers, i.e. the independence of judiciary, executive, and legislature. Pakistan's Constitution defines the composition of each organ, specifies its powers, and places limits on the exercise of such powers. In this way the Constitution lays down the system of checks and balances so that each organ is able to function effectively in its own sphere, and does not interfere in the domain of another16. The Judiciary being the custodian of the Constitution is required upon to adjudicate and see that all acts done and actions taken by any organ of the state do not violate the provisions of the Constitution. Judicial activism, however, can get activated when institutions remain unguarded and unchecked. It can put a word of caution to administration and public functionaries to compel them to perform their activities strictly in accordance with the rule of law17. It is thus through this Judicial Activism that apex Courts can control and check the executive with "suo motu" actions to facilitate in overcoming the difficulties being faced by the members of the society. "Suo motu, a Latin legal term, meaning on its own motion; taking notice or cognizance of a matter by a Court or Authority upon its own initiative is, in legal parlance, called suo motu exercise of jurisdiction by the Court or Authority"18 The action is the result of judicial activism for public interest litigation19/probono publico.20 Suo motu action taken by the superior court is a method of providing remedy on the basis of fundamental rights granted by the Constitution. 16. State v. Ziaur Rehman PLD 1973 SC 49. 17. Malik Qamar Afzal Supra Note 14 at 69. 18. Asif Saeed Khan Khoas, Suo Motu Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction, PLD 1993 Journal 87. 19. "Public interest Litigation is a Judicial response to redress the problems of the underprivileged, by giving them the right to seek access to justice.", Dr. Faquir Hussain, Public Interest Litigation in Pakistan, PLD 1993 Journal 72, 73. 20. As defined in the Blacks Law Dictionary, Chambers Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary generally means for the public good' or for welfare of the whole' being or involving uncompensated legal services performed specially for the public good. Judicial history of Pakistan shows that the judges of Supreme Court had always been against the suo motu intervention of the Courts. Supreme Court in the past had never even encouraged High Courts to exercise such powers under writ petitions.21 The Supreme Court held in Asma Jillani case22----"The Court's judicial function is to adjudicate upon a real and present controversy which is formally raised before it by a litigant. If the litigant does not choose to raise a question, however important it might be, it is not for the court to raise it suo motu." Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, criticizes in an article23 that judges should never assume the role of a reformer of a society. By initiating the procedure on its own, it throws away the cloak of neutrality and enters the arena as a party to a cause. In such a situation it is difficult to decide as to whether the court is acting as a judge or as a litigator on behalf of the others. When once the court acts as a. litigator, it threatens the litigation and the profession of law. In addition, if the Court keeps on moving like this, the Court may deviate from its original path of providing justice when moved instead of dictating justice 4 its own will. Nevertheless, in order to keep a check on the malfunctioning of executive; judiciary provides relief to the sufferers of dictatorship, by interpreting laws which are either deficient or vague in their correct perspective. This allows the judiciary to act as a "watchman"24 on other organs of the State by providing speedy remedy to the ordinary weak citizens to contest against the State authority, and judiciary is there to defend them. 21. Tariq Transport Company, Lahore v. Sarrodha-Bhera Bus Service and others: PLD 1958 SC 437 "High Court, therefore, is not competent merely on information or of its own knowledge to commence ceitioriari proceedings or other proceedings of a similar nature under the constitutional provision. And if that be correct, as I hold it is, the High Court could neither suo motu nor at the instance of the Provincial Transport Authority, which was not at the slightest degree concerned with the matter, go into the various issues raised by the Authority." 22. Miss Asma Jillani v. The government of Punjab and another PLD 1972 SC 139. 23. Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Supra Note 18 at 96. 24. Malik Qamar Afzal, supra Note. 14, 69. The enabling provision for Supreme Court to act suo motu in protecting fundamental rights is given under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. This states that without prejudice to the provision of Article 199, the Supreme Court shall, if it considers that the question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by chap 1 of part II is involved, have the power to make an order of the nature mentioned in the said Article." The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in exercising its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, has been taking up suo motu actions in a variety of legal issues to protect the poor and ordinary people, such as bonded labor, malpractices in the educational system, child abuse, victims of gender exploitation, murder cases, traffic control, environmental. degradation etc. The threshold entry of Public Interest Litigation via suo motu actions is rooted in Pakistan judicial history since 1988, when in the case of Benazir Bhutto25, a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution was filed by Benazir Bhutto as co-chairperson of the Pakistan Peoples Party in challenging the amendment made in the Political Parties Act, 1962 on the grounds that those amendments violated the fundamental rights of the freedom of association and equality before law. The court ruled that there was no legal bar to a person acting bona fide to activise a court for the enforcement of a group or class of person who are unable to seek relief from the court for several reasons. The first profound judgment by the Supreme Court, given under its original jurisdiction, was in Darshan Masieh case.26 The Supreme Court invoked jurisdiction on the basis of a telegram sent by a group of brick kiln bonded labourers and their families. The Court held therein, that any conceivable just and proper order can be passed which is deemed to be appropriate for enforcement of fundamental right. Syed Mushtaq Hussain in article Public Interest Litigation has quoted observations of Justice Nasim Hassan Shah in one of his articles in which the later states, "---the jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court in the cited cases was not essentially confined to the enforcement of fundamental rights within the meaning of Article 184(3) of the Constitution but was much wider exercise of judicial discretion to provide social justice to the citizens----." 25. Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416. 26. Darshan Masih v. State PLD 1990 SC 513. The Supreme Court adopted two major sources to act suo motu i.e. action on receiving letters/telegrams27, and on news items of the national press and electronic media. Those were converted into regular petitions28. Pending petitions of human right violations were also taken up at the earliest29. The success of this new way of intervention has been welcomed by the public. The above excerpts from constitutional cases, facts, and principles raise issues pertaining to environmental concerns as to whether the Court has power to exercise its jurisdiction in checking the abuse of power and misuse of authority in environmental arena or whether in doing so it would overstep its judicial role. Since Pakistan has adversarial system of litigation, does Courts' interference threaten the future of litigation in Pakistan? Do the lawyers have anything to fear about? Can the suo motu interventions by the Supreme Court really help in enforcement of the environmental law? Whether suo motu actions are proper to protect the fundamental environmental rights of common people? The activism in Pakistan for suo motu action in environmental cases had a landmark in the case of Shela Zia30. In this case the citizens having apprehensions against the construction of grid station in a residential area sent a letter to the Supreme Court. The Court gave a historic judgment and broke down barriers to the right to sue. It 'entertained the application for relief, by accepting the petition.31 The Court held that right to a clean environment is a fundamental right of all the citizens of Pakistan covered by the "right to life" and the "right to dignity" under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution. The Court further held word "life" is very significant as it covers all facts of human existence. Life has not been defined in the Constitution but it does not mean that it can be restricted only to vegetative or animal life or mere existence from conception to death. It went on to state that life includes- all such amenities and facilities, which a person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy legally and constitutionally. The Court, therefore, concluded, "a person is entitled to protection of law from being exposed to hazard of electrical magnetic fields or in such hazards, which may be due to installation of any grid station, in factory, power station, or such like installations. This innovative interpretation of the right to life and dignity has been the most salutary development to protect the environment and promote sustainable development in-Pakistan.32 27. e.g. Darsh Masieh case wherein the Court invoked jurisdiction on the basis of a telegram. 28. The Review; 8th. June, 2006. 29. e.g. in Human Right case 2, 20 and 25 of 1992. 30. SheIa Zia v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693. 31. Parvez Hassan and Azim Azfar, Supra Note 3 at 11. In, 1992, Karachi Administration Women's Welfare Society (KAWSS) wrote a letter to the Supreme Court stating, "the health hazards in the use of open storm water drains for the disposal of sewage, and the contamination of household water by sewage, resulting from damaged adjoining water and sewage pipes are violation of the fundamental rights of the people living in the area." The Supreme Court by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction of suo motu converted the letter into a human right case No.9-K of 1992 and to check the malfunctioning of the authority held, "A Commission was to be constituted to report on whether the complaints in the original petition were correct." On report by the commission that the complaint in the petition was correct, the Court ordered KAECHS for the remedial measures including the repair of the water and sewerage pipes.33 The above case , indicate that the Court has adequate powers under Article 184(3) to investigate into questions of fact by recording evidence, appointing commission or by any other reasonable legal manner to ascertain the correct position.34 32. Dr. Pervaiz Hassan, Shehla Zia v. WAPDA: Ten Years later, PLD 2005, Journal 48 at 1. 33. IJCN, You can make a difference: Environmental Public Interest cases in Pakistan. 34. Parvez Hassain and Azim Azfar LEXSEE 22 VA. ENVTL. LJ 215 at 13. Justice Saleem Akhtar in 1994 took suo rnotu notice of a news report under Article 184(3) to the effect that certain businessmen were purchasing land in the coastal area of Baluchistan for use of dumping hazardous nuclear and industrial waste. The Court asked for a report on the matter from the Provincial Government. It turned out that there was no substance in the report. The Court nevertheless, issued directions to the Government that no person shall be allotted land for dumping nuclear or industrial waste it directed, that the Government should submit a list of persons to whom land in the coastal area of Baluchistan has already been allotted. It further directed that a condition must be inserted in the agreement of allotment to the effect that the land should not be used for the dumping of nuclear or industrial waste. The court also directed that a similar undertaking be obtained from the allottee of the land in the coastal area.35 In a subsequent Khewra Salt Mine case, petitioners sought enforcement of the right of the residents to have clean and unpolluted water. They petitioned that if miners were allowed to continue their activities, which were extended in the water catchments area, the watercourse, reservoir and the pipelines will get contaminated. Supreme Court, while entertaining the petition filed under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, issued number of directions to the concerned departments and directed the miners to shift within four months from the location of the mouth of the specified mine at a safe distance from the stream and small reservoir, in such 'a manner that those were not polluted by mine debris, carbonized material, and water spilling out from the mines to the satisfaction of the Commission appointed by the Supreme Court for the purposes.36 Supreme Court in another Human Right case of smoke-emitting public vehicles ordered the Provincial Government of Sindh to take effective measures with regard to eliminating the pollution caused by the smoke emitting vehicles. The Court held that all smoke-emitting vehicles, whether privately owned or owned by government departments, should be regularly inspected and checked. The Court ordered for emergency checks to be carried out for the purpose by the concerned officials. It held that motorcycles and auto-rickshaws must not be allowed to ply without silencers and that the use of pressure horns and multi-tones horns, must be prohibited. Supreme Court passed order under Article 184 for taking effective and remedial measures in order to streamline the process of checking as a first step in eliminating the pollution from Karachi. 37 35. Human Right case, Environment Pollution in Baluchistan; PLD 1994 SC 102. 36. General Secretary West Pakistan Salt Mines Labour Union (C.B.A.) Khewra Jhelum v. Director Industries and Mineral Development Punjab Lahore 1994 SCMR 2061. 37. Pollution of environment caused by Smoke, Emitting Vehicles, Traffic In March 2006, the Supreme Court took "'suo motu notice of a petition by four residents of the village of Baghalchur in the Dera Ghazi Khan district of the southern Punjab, alleging radioactive atomic waste being dumped there by the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) at a place, where mining operations conducted in the past to get uranium for the country's nuclear programs. They claimed this was having a negative impact on the health of local residents as well as on their cattle.38 According to the complainants, the area had been used as a dumping station for the past years, ponds had become poisonous, and animals were losing hair and their hooves were swelling. They said that around 40 animals had died last year. The PAEC, however, claimed that uranium-mining operation at Baghalchur got closed in November, 1999 and mining operation was closed because the reserves had been extracted. Since then silence has prevailed. 38. Uranium waste poisons Baghalchur village, Pakistan: http://www. minesandcommunities.org/Action/press1033.htm. In Maulvi Iqbal Haider's case, petition was filed under Article 184(3) of Constitution, 1973 before the Court of Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry involving the question of public importance with reference to enforcement of fundamental right. The petitioner requested for the cancellation of the leasing out of a public park in Islamabad owned by Capital Development Authority (CDA) for its conversion into mini golf club. The court ruled that constitutional petition under Art 184(3) of the Constitution can be maintained subject to establishing by the petitioner that question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of fundamental right has been made out. Person can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of Supreme Court as probono publico,, but while invoking said jurisdiction, he has to show that he is litigating firstly in the public interest and secondly, for the public good or for the welfare of the general public. In case of public interest litigation he can agitate for relief on his own behalf and also on behalf of the general public against various public functionaries, where they have failed to, perform their duties relating to the welfare of public at large, and which they are bound to provide under relevant law and that petitioner's bona fide in that respect is also established. The Court ruled that the deal was contrary to the fundamental rights of the public enshrined under Article 26 of the Constitution. In another important case, the Supreme Court moved Suo motu under Art.184(3) in the matter of cutting down of trees of a public park. The City District Government started construction of a multistoreyed car parking plaza in it. The Supreme Court, in circumstances, directed the City District Government that even though the project had been abandoned for the reasons mentioned in the statement by the City District Government yet the CDG was restrained from putting the park in future to any other use save in accordance with the law. The City District Government was also directed to restore the status of Public Park.39 The Chief Justice of Pakistan took suo motu notice in the Daily Dawn of 25th June, 2006 on a press report regarding chopping down of some 2000 trees along the Canal Bank, Lahore. The Court ordered the Government of Punjab to submit comments with reference to the report.40 The acting Chief Justice of Pakistan, on 6th January, 2007, ordered Cantonment Board Karachi and. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board to submit report on filthy conditions of road and sewerage system in Clifton Karachi.41 Justice Javaid Iqbal took suo motu action on 29th June, 2007 for delay in construction of roads and underpasses. Those were not completed within the stipulated time-period, and substandard material had been used by the contractors. The poor conditions of the bridges/roads had caused pollution, traffic hazards to the general public and commuters. Different diseases including gastro, hepatitis, and asthma had spread among the population along the construction area.42 39. Suo motu case No.3 of 2006; PLD 2006 SC 514. 40. Asif Hussain Shirazi, P.R.O. to Chief Justice of Pakistan, CJP takes Suo motu action for Chopping Trees, Press Release, dated 29th June, 2006. 41. M. Arshad Munir, PRO Chief Justice, Suo Motu action on Delay in Construction of Roads and Underpasses, Press Release, dated 29th June, 2007. 42. Rina Saeed Khan, Playing Havoc with Nature, "The Review"; 8th June, 2006. A recent article on" The New Muree project" published in the newspaper42 was registered as a petition by Chief Justice of Pakistan to take suo motu notice. According to the report submitted by the chief secretary Punjab 1% of total -tree population i.e. 4000 trees will be affected by the development of the resort. Moreover, according to the environmentalists the Patriata forest boasts the highest average of rainfall annually in the country around, 1770 mm, and it is situated in the catchments of Simly and Rawal Dams, which provides -almost half of the drinking water to the Residents of Rawalpindi and Islamabad, therefore, due to the development of Murree Project the dams will be disturbed and ultimately will leave to their eventual silting etc. The court ruled out that "the facts of the case constitute question of public importance, which touches their fundamental right including the Right of life." The court ordered that "the article published in the newspaper be registered as petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution." From analytical study of the above cases, it appears that the Supreme Court has not overstepped its judicial role and has rightly and justly initiated suo motu proceedings in protection of the environment as a fundamental right. The judicial activism of the court towards dealing with the high voltage grid station in Shella Zia case, and the registration of a news article into suo motu Petition filed in the New Muree case was a direct approach towards sustainable development. In addition, the above mentioned cases prove that the supreme court moved suo motu justly by applying the principle of precautionary measures43 in Salt Miners case by taking into account the seriousness of danger which the people of the area were exposed to; in Baluchistan environmental case by appointing the commission to assess the dumping of hazardous nuclear waste; in Baghlchur case the principle assumed to be indirectly applied against the atomic wastage dumping; and in Smoke-emitting public vehicles in controlling the pollution. 43. The precautionary principle evolved from the recognition that scientific certainty often comes too late to design effective legal and policy responses for preventing potential environmental threats. Principles and Concepts in INTL Environmental Law at 360. The above case laws indicate that suo motu action by Supreme Court points out immaturity and impotency of the public institutions, in the enforcement and implementation of environmental law. Through these actions court identifies the cause of legislative ineffectiveness in understanding the environmental institutions immaturity. The tacit reason of such ineffectiveness in the region is due to inadequately trained personnel, lack of equipment, scarcity of financial resources, absence of environmental educational program, and apathy of the public at large. However, we cannot blame wholly our environmental institutions as to their weaknesses because those are still in their teenage. This judicial activism with interaction of technical, institutional and political factors in parallel to socio economic factors aids in implementation and enforcement of sound environmental regulations. The suo motu actions taken in the above cases were the step towards enforcement of environmental law of Pakistan in protection of the fundamental right of the ordinary citizens. These steps by the Court have alerted the institutions, administrations, and public functionaries as to their responsibility. We therefore, can say that suo motu actions by Supreme Court have made the judicial system effective in providing quick relief to the common man. This activism via suo motu actions has given a lot of relief to the ordinary people in protection of their environmental fundamental rights. This process is cheap as it dispenses with the payment of court fees, engagement of lawyers, filing of affidavits.44 44. Dr. Faquir Hussain, Acess to Justice, PLD 1994 Journal 10, 19. Since Pakistan's Constitution, as mentioned above, is silent on environmental protection, an addition regarding the right to environment should be recognized as part of the fundamental right to life. This will aid in better conservation and protection of environment, and will rationalize the suo motu approach by the Courts. Suo motu action as of today is the result of grave environmental degradation in Pakistan. It is but an inevitable solution of severe environmental problem being faced by the common man. Separation of powers has its own benefits; however, there is a need. to check the abuse of power and misuse of authority by taking suo motu actions. This judicial action is defending and protecting the ignored poor, deprived, and the dispossessed within the parameters of social, economic, and cultural requirements of the society. Since justice delayed is justice denied; this additional task of Supreme Court to take suso motu actions is another responsible effort to remove the defect of delay in the judicial system. Considering prudently, should an ordinary man go for a speedy inexpensive remedy via suo motu action or spend expensively for delayed justice.