Role of Commissions in Public Interest Environmental Litigation in Pakistan

ROLE OF COMMISSIONS ROLE OF COMMISSIONS IN PUBLIC INTEREST ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION IN PAKISTAN* By Dr. Parvez Hassan, Advocate and Ahmad Rafay Alam, Advocate Lahore A. Growth and Development of Public Interest Environmental Litigation * A paper presented at the 4th National Judicial Conference organized by the National Judicial Policy Making Committee on 22-24 April, 2011 held at the Supreme Court Building, Islamabad. The authors have benefited from an earlier presentation delivered by co-author Parvez Hassan, on "The Role of the Judiciary and Judicial Commissions on Sustainable Development Issues in South Asia", at the Second International Elizabeth Haub Symposium in Murnau, Germany, on 20-22 September, 2006 (the article is published in 3 Environmental Policy and Law, No. 2 (2007); 185-193). The authors acknowledge, gratefully, the research assistance of M. Maham Naqshband in the preparation of this paper. The Pakistani judiciary has, over the past two decades, developed a dense jurisprudence of public interest environmental litigation ("PIEL") to enforce the constitutionally protected Fundamental Rights of the public.1 The pioneering judgments in Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan2 and the Darshan Masih case recognized the limitations of the "Anglo-Saxon outgrowth"3 our system of adversarial litigation represented and sought to provide new procedural mechanisms to ensure substantial justice for large segments of society. More recently, the Supreme Court has taken suo motu notice of public interest issues as varied as the privatization of Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited4, the New Murree Development case5 and loan write-offs.6 1. For a detailed survey of public interest litigation in Pakistan, see Werner Menski, Ahmad Rafay Alam and Mehreen Raza Kasuri Public Interest Litigation fn Pakistan (Pakistan Law House, Karachi. 2000), Mansoor Hassan Khan, The Concept of Public Interest Litigation and its Meaning in Pakistan, PLD 1992 Journal 84 and Parvez Hassan, "Judiciary Leading the Way" (1998) 15(1) The Environmental Forum 48. For a general review of trends, in respect of public interest litigation, in the region, see Dr. Parvez Hassan and Azim Azfar "Securing Environmental Rights Through Public Interest Litigation in South Asia" (2004) 22 Virginia Environmental Law Journal 215. Jana Razzaque, Public Interest Environmental Litigation In India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (Kluwer 2004) provides a seminal over-view of this subject. 2. PLD 1988 Supreme Court 388 3. Id.. at p. 488 per Muhammad Ilaleem, CJ. In "Hardship to Litigants and Miscarriages of Justice Caused by Delay in Courts", PLD 1991 Journal 103, Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian (as he was then) went as far as to say that the adversarial system was an "inherited evil". 4. Wattan Party v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 Supreme Court 697. 5. Suo Motu Case No. 10 of 2005. 6. Suo Motu Case No. 26 of 2007. The need, rationale and justification for developing the PIEL jurisdiction has been explained by Mr. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani in State v. M.D. WASA:-- The rationale behind public interest litigation in developing countries like Pakistan and India is the social and educational backwardness of its people, the dwarfed development of law of tort, lack of developed institutions to attend to the matters of public concern, the general inefficacy and corruption at various levels. In such a socio-economic and political, milieu, the non-intervention by Court in complaints of matters of public concern will amount to abdication of judicial authority.7 7. 2000 CLC 471 (Lahore) Development in the principles of PIEL has seen the rise of a remarkable number of PIEL "tools." These tools, which are in fact a relaxation of the otherwise strict rules of the adversarial litigation system, can be understood as a means to promote the goals of PIEL. Examples of these tools are the widening of the scope of locus standi; softening the law of limitation,8 precedent9 and procedure;10 and the transformation of the nature of proceedings from adversarial to inquisitorial. All these tools are geared towards achieving the goals of PIEL as set out in the words of Chief Justice Ajmal Mian of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan: -- 8. See Ghulam Ali v. Ghulam Sarwar,, PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1 where the Court refused to accept a plea that a female petitioner's arguments had become time-barred. 9. Inavat Bibi v. Isaac Nazir Ullah, PLD 1992 Supreme Court 385. 10. Khalil-uz-Zaman v. Supreme Appellate Court, Lahore, PLD 1994 Supreme Court 885. We are inclined to hold that the question whether a particular [public interest litigation] petition is maintainable is to be examined not on the basis as to who has filed the same, but the above question is to be determined with reference to the controversy raised in the Constitutional petition, and if the controversy involves a question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights the same will be sustainable. (emphasis added)11 Thus in PIEL cases, the subject-matter of the PIEL petition dictates the procedure of the court12 and the function of the Courts is to provide a forum for democratic debate and to find "consensus" solutions to public issues. 11. 1999 SCMR 382, and see Menski, Alam and Kasuri, supra note 1. 12. See Dr. Faqir Hussain, "Public Interest Litigation in Pakistan," PLD 1993 Journal 73. B. Strengthening Environmental Law through PIEL In the landmark PIEL decision in Shehla Zia v. WAPDA,13 the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the right to a clean and healthy environment was part of the Fundamental Right to Life guaranteed by Article 9 of the Constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court also introduced the Precautionary Principle of environmental law, as enshrined in the Rio Declaration,14 into Pakistani jurisprudence. 13. PLD 1994 Supreme Court. 693. 14. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development was adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Subsequent to the Shehla Zia case, the Pakistan Environment Protection Act, 1997 ("PEPA") was passed by the Parliament and became the environmental law of the land. The PEPA incorporates the Precautionary and other Principles of the Rio Declaration. Violations of the PEPA are punishable with a wide array of penalties, including fines and imprisonment. Persons aggrieved of pollution or of violations of the PEPA have been provided an opportunity to file their complaints before the Environment Protection Agencies ("EPAs") set up under the PEPA. If complaints are not dealt with to the satisfaction of the complainant, recourse to Environment Protection Tribunals is also afforded. Despite the statutory framework provided by the PEPA and the alternative forum it provides, the superior courts of Pakistan have taken up a number of environmental cases, both on petition and suo motu, regarding the protection of the environment and the enforcement of the provisions of PEPA. These cases include, before the Supreme Court, the Lahore Canal Road case, New Murree Development Authority case and Doongi Ground case. In its suo motu jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has been able to take up high-profile environment issues and, by doing so, protect their outcome from political intervention. This has been the significant contribution of the Supreme Court to the enforcement of environmental rights. C. Limitations of PIEL in Environment Protection and the Role of Commissions Violations of PEPA result in litigation before the High Courts and the Supreme Court of Pakistan that would .otherwise have been conducted at the level of the Environment Protection Tribunals between the aggrieved, the EPA and the alleged violators. Particularly because of the authority of the Supreme Court, the receipt of a suo motu notice in any matter is of serious concern to the EPA and these agencies tend to adopt a "wait-and-see" approach to the issue under consideration. This results in a suffocation of the capacity of the EPA, which would otherwise have gained from the exposure to the issue. Another limitation to the PIEL and suo motu proceedings with respect to the environment and violations of PEPA is that the issues brought forward for consideration are often of highly technical and complicated matters. Without the benefit of precedent and previously decided cases, the superior courts of Pakistan have adopted a unique and innovative approach of appointing Commissions to investigate the issues and to make recommendations. This pioneering corpus of practice has come mostly from the vision of Justices Saleem Akhtar, Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Muhammad Sair Ali (we environmental lawyers call them "green" Judges). And in a ,recent case, in 2011., the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, led a bench of the Supreme Court to endorse the practice of looking to Commissions/Committees for mediating environmental disputes. The eloquent story of PIEL in Pakistan, from 1991 to date, has unfolded to the following details: 1. The Asphalt Plants Case (1991) The first appointment of a Commission In the field of environment in the country in a public interest litigation was most probably in United Welfare Association, Lahore v. Lahore Development Authority (Writ Petition No. 9297 of 1991) before Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rahman Khan of the Lahore High Court. The intervention of the court was sought for getting certain asphalt plants removed from the petitioners' sites in Lahore on account of serious health hazards the plants were posing for the residents. Dr. Justice Nasim Hasan Shah comments on this case: The anxiety felt by the Court on hearing this complaint is manifest from the order it passed on 15 October, 1991. Hereinafter noticing the contention of the petitioner it not only called upon the Lahore Development Authority to answer the allegations contained in the petition but also requested a renowned environmentalist namely Dr. Parvez Hassan, Advocate to visit the area "to verify the complaint made and then suggest to the Court the measures to be adopted".15 15. Environment and the Role of the Judiciary, PLD 1992 Journal 21, at 27. Dr. Parvez Hassan visited the area, with scientific support from PCSIR, and reported to the Lahore High Court that: The air-borne pollutants, from the operational activity of the plant, are dispersed over a large area. ... [and that these pollutants were emitting] toxic substances like sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hetrocyclic compounds and hydrocarbons besides colossal quantities of air-borne fine dust emitted through the crush unloading at the site and during its processing at the plant. Dr. Parvez Hassan recommended to the Court that: The continued operation of these plants is inconsistent with the rights of the adjoining residential areas to a clean and healthy environment. The residents are continually exposed to the obnoxious fumes and the potential health hazards unleashed by these asphalt plants. These should be removed from the site and relocated in areas where there is no danger to the environment. Even at the reallocated sites, the activities of the plants should be monitored with a view to minimize the impact of their environmental degradation. As a result of this report, the Director-General, Lahore Development Authority, passed orders 'for the shifting of the asphalt plants. 2. The Shehla Zia'Case (1994) In the Shehla Zia case, the Supreme Court was presented a unique petition when smile residents of a residential area of Islamabad had approached the Court regarding the construction of a high voltage grid station by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The residents, led by Ms. Shehla Zia, apprehended that the electro magnetic radiation of the grid station could be harmful for their health. In adjudicating this case, the Supreme Court pioneered the use of judicial commissions in Pakistan to tackle complex environmental issue and to present suitable options. In its order, the Supreme Court gave significant relief to the petitioners by staying the construction of the grid station until further studies were done to establish the nature and extent of the threat posed by electro-magnetic radiation emitted by power plants. Drawing on the experiences of the Indian courts, the Supreme Court` set up a commission of experts to study the technical dimensions and to submit a report in this respect: 16. In the problem at hand the likelihood of any hazard to life by magnetic field effect cannot be ignored. At the same time the need for constructing grid stations, which are necessary for industrial and economic development, cannot be lost sight of. From the material produced by the parties it seems that while planning and deciding to construct the gird station WAPDA and the Government Department acted in a routine manner without taking into consideration the latest research and planning in the field nor any thought seems to have been given to the hazards it may cause to human health. In these circumstances, before passing any final order, with the consent of both the parties we appoint NESPAK as Commissioner to examine and study the scheme, planning, device and technique employed by WAPDA and report whether there is any likelihood of any hazard or adverse effect on health of the residents of the locality... as suggested above (emphasis added).16 The public utility concerned was also directed to make a public-friendly administrative approach a norm in its future work. The Shehla Zia case unleashed a new paradigm in public interest litigation on environmental issues in Pakistan as the superior courts grew more receptive to appointing Commissions to progress environmental rights.17 16. Supra note 13, at 715. 17. See generally Parvcz Hassan, "Shehla Zia v. WAPDA: Ten Years Later", PLD 2005 Journal 48, ' also published in International Environmental Law Committee Newsletter of the American Bar Association's Section on Environment, Energy and Resources 13-19 (May 2005). 3. The Salt Miners Case (1994) In 1995, the Supreme Court appointed a Commission in General Secretary, West Pakistan Salt Mines Labour Union (CBA) Khewra, Jhelum v. Director, Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab, Lahore,18 to visit the site of extensive mining activity and to recommend remedial measures. The Supreme Court directed: 6. In view of the above discussion:- (i) P.C.C. is directed to shift within four months, the location of the mouth of mine No. 27A at a safe distance from the stream and small reservoir in such a manner that they are not polluted by mine debris, carbonized material and water spilled out from the mines to the satisfaction of the Commission consisting of the following members:- (a)? Dr. Parvez Hassan, Advocate, Lahore (Chairman). (b)? Dr. Tariq Banuri. (c)? Director, Industries and Mineral Development, Lahore. (d)? A member nominated by PMDC (Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation). (e)? A member .co-opted by the aforestated members of the Commission. The Commission shall have power of inspection, recording evidence, examining witnesses including the powers as provided by order XXVI of the Civil Procedure Code. If, on the report of the Commission, it transpires that shifting of the mine mouth is not possible, then the case shall be placed before the Court for further consideration including the question whether the operation of mine No. 27A should be completely stopped; (at p. 2073-74) (emphasis added).19 18. 1994 SCMR 2061. 19. Id. at 2073. As counsel of the petitioners in' the Shehla Zia case, and the Chairperson of the commission appointed in the Salt Miners case, co-author Dr. Parvez. Hassan had a hand in shaping the orientation of the Pakistani courts towards the use of judicial commissions in public interest environmental litigation. The basic approach that was followed was to recommend to the court how commissions, in other countries, have helped provide science/technology-based solutions- which lie outside the expertise of the Courts. Apart from providing the court expert guidance, the other limb of this approach was to highlight the importance of a non-adversarial, public-private partnership model for handling the most intractable civic problems. 4. The Solid Waste Management Commission (2003) The pattern of appointing expert commissions with broad participation of the stakeholders has been successfully employed recently in three major environmental petitions in Lahore. In 2003, in an intra? court appeal, City District Government v. Muhammad Yousaf,20 challenging the use of a site for dumping solid wastes, a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court comprising Justices Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Bashir A. Mujahid of Lahore High Court appointed the Solid Waste Management Commission to review the suitability of Mahmood Booti as a site for solid waste disposal. The Court also directed the Commission to advise on the optimal environmentally appropriate manner for the disposal of solid wastes in Lahore as well as to recommend other sites for the disposal of solid wastes as per Lahore's requirements. 20. I.C.A No. 798/2002 filed before the Lahore High Court. Co-author Dr. Parvez Hassan was appointed the Chairman of the Commission comprising, on his recommendation, a broad section of representatives from both the public and private sectors. This roundtable included government officials and city administrators including the District Nazim (the Mayor of Lahore), the District Co-ordination Officer, the Director, Solid Waste Management, Government of Punjab, Director General, EPA, Punjab, Secretary, Health, Punjab, academics and scientists, parliamentarians, specialists, environmentalists, and members of civil society (representatives of IUCN Pakistan and WWF ?Pakistan). The Commission set up a sub-committee for hospital waste disposal under the Provincial Secretary, Health, who is the incharge of all the public sector hospitals. It is also a reflection of the public-private sector partnership and harmonious working of the Commission that it persuaded the City District Government Lahore to arrange and finance the Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA") of Mahmood Booti by NESPAK, a consultancy firm chosen by the Commission. On 23 March, 2005, Lahore inaugurated the construction of its first integrated compost and landfill plant at Mahmood Booti and the plant was commissioned one (1) year later with private sector participation on a build, operate and transfer basis. According to The News, "Lahore's first compost plan will transform around 20 per cent of the city's solid waste into 250 tonnes of organic fertilizer on a daily basis".21 The Solid Waste Management Commission moved with dedication and resolve to provide a model environmentally appropriate solid waste disposal regime for Lahore, hopefully to be replicated in other parts of the country.22 21. Aoun Sakti, The News on Sunday (9 April, 2006). 22. It was a measure of the gratitude of the city of Lahore for the work and role of the Solid Waste Management Commission that the speakers at the commissioning of the Plant acknowledged the pivotal role of the Commission in forging a science-based consensus on an acrimonious issue and thereby avoiding long years of litigation and appeals. 5. The. Lahore Clean Air Commission (2003) In Syed Mansoor Ali Shah v. Government of Punjab,23 Mr. Justice Muhammad Sair Ali of the Lahore High Court appointed, in July, 2003, a Lahore Clean Air Commission, also chaired by co-author Dr. Parvez Hassan and co-chaired by the Advocate General, Punjab, to recommend measures for the improvement of Lahore air quality. This Commission, on Dr. Parvez Hassan's request, similarly included representatives from both the private and public sector including the City. District Government Lahore. It set up sub-committees with respect to (1) clean fuel, (2) rickshaws, (3) public transport and (4) coordination with local councils. The Rickshaws sub-committee, for example, worked under the Chairmanship of the Provincial Secretary, Environment, and the Clean Fuel sub-committee worked under the Chairmanship of the District Coordination Officer, Lahore. Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, the coordinator of both this and the Mehmood Booti Commission, chaired the sub-committee on public transport and held public hearings at the City Government conference room. All the oil companies were invited by the Clean Fuel sub-committee to support the work of the Commission. 23. Writ Petition No. 6927 of 1997 filed before the Lahore High Court. The Lahore Clean Air Commission similarly finalized its Report on 21 May, 2005 with a developed consensus of all stakeholders including the manufacturers and users of public transport and rickshaws. These recommendations, including toward four stroke engines for rickshaws and CNG use, were filed in the Lahore High Court. In 2006, the Secretary, Transport, Government of Punjab, joined in supporting the recommendations of the Commission before the Lahore High Court. In order to ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission, Mr. Justice Hamid Ali. Shah,: in W.P. No. 6927, directed that: 16. Standing body of the Commission, comprising of Dr. Parvez Hassan, Advocate (Chairman); Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Advocate/Petitioner (Facilitator and Coordinator), District Coordination Officer (DCO), Lahore, Hammad Naqi, Director (Environment Pollution Unit), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Lahore and Nihal Asghar, SEAL, Lahore is constituted to remain operational till the accomplished of the Commission, approved hereinabove from Lahore. The Transport Department and the City District Government Lahore shall regularly report their progress to the Standing Body and keep them involved in their deliberations and plans. In case the Standing Body is of the view that the recommendations are not being followed or are being deviated from, they are free to approach this Hon'ble Court for appropriate orders. In this manner, the Court also provided means for ensuring compliance and enforcement of PIEL judgments. 1. The Lahore Canal Road Mediation Committee (2011) In May, 2006, the Traffic Engineering and Planning Agency ("TEPA") of the Lahore Development Agency began preparations to cut down trees along the Lahore Canal Road in order to widen it for the purposes of reducing congestion. The move was resisted by a civil society organization by the name of the Lahore Bachao Tehreek ("LBT"). LBT's activism secured an EIA of the road widening project. The LBT challenged the approval given to the EIA by the EPA, Punjab but the case remained pending in the Lahore High Court. In 2009, when the provincial government sought to proceed with the road widening project, the Supreme Court took suo motu notice24 of the environmental harm that would result in the felling of trees. On 14 February, 2011, the Supreme Court appointed co-author Dr. Parvez Hassan as mediator between the LBT and the Government of Punjab with powers to associate others for the purposes of the mediation. Accordingly, eight (8) eminent citizens, elected representatives and government officials, representing the cross-section of stakeholders were requested to participate as a Committee. The Mediation Committee comprising Dr. Parvez Hassan (Chairman), Syed Babar Ali, Mr. Sartaj Aziz, Ms. Mira Phailbus, Mr. Arif Hassan, Mr. Javed Jabbar, Mr. Abid Qaiyum Suleri, Mr. Ayaz Sadiq (MNA), Mr. Nadeem Hassan Asif (Commissioner, Lahore) and Mr. Ahmad Rafay Alam (Secretary) has worked closely with Mr. Ahmer Bilal Soofi, counsel of the LBT, and Mr. Salman Aslam Butt, counsel of the Government of Punjab. The constructive role of the two (2) counsel of the parties is being found as critically helpful in the deliberations of the Committee. 24. Suo Motu Case No. 25 of 2009. At the time of writing this paper, the Committee has conducted its first two (2) meetings, having invited comments from the public and proceeding in an open and informal manner at the Beaconhouse National University and the Lahore University of Management Sciences in Lahore to enable their students and faculty to participate in a dispute resolution effort impacting on the city of Lahore. It is hoped that, by receiving the views of the LBT and Government of Punjab as well as other stakeholders and experts such as on urban planning, traffic engineering and environment protection, the Committee will be able to formulate recommendations on the complicated issues in a manner so as to assist the Supreme Court to pass an appropriate order in the proceedings. D. Benefits and Limitations in Work of Judicial Commissions With the commissioning of the Compost Plant in Lahore, it is gratifying that the public and private sector partnership reflected in the membership of the Solid Waste Management Commission facilitated this success and demonstrated the value to civil society of avoiding protracted, contentious, divisive and adversarial proceedings before the courts of Pakistan. The model, instead, was to resolve complex issues by the use of science, technology and dispassionate technical advice with the willing co-operation and support of the City Government. Each metropolis is unique but it is hoped that the experience of the Solid Waste Management Commission in Lahore may provide some useful lessons for urban environmental management in Pakistan. Equally useful would be a consensus-building approach of the Lahore Clean Air Commission and the on-going public participation being carried out by the Lahore Canal Road Committee. The use of court-appointed Commissions to resolve complex environmental issues in Pakistan has already shown promise. Moving away from an adversarial ethos of a court room to a more informal round-table of a Commission by itself promotes a dialogue and discussion between the stakeholders. Moreover, when care is taken toward an all-inclusive process of enabling all the stakeholders from-both the public and private sectors to be represented in the Commission, the credibility of its work and success is significantly assured, It is particularly important to include in the Commission those Departments or Ministries of the Government that would ultimately be responsible for the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission. Eminent scientists and experts drawn from Universities and academia can anchor the work of the Commission by providing "neutral" and state-of-the-art technical and science-based advice on the complex issues before the Commission. The role of the Chairman can also be important in the impartiality and fairness with which he conducts the proceedings of the Commission and enables public participation and hearings to factor different points of view. The success of the Chairman lies ultimately in persuading the members of the Commission and other participants to move away from the narrower mindset and language of "I" "you" "mine" and "yours" to a more appropriate "we" "us" and "ours". Only when this central aspect of a common ground for the needs of a city or civil society is recognized and realized can a Commission succeed in the important tasks entrusted it by the Courts. But the use of judicial commissions is by no means a panacea as the technique can only work effectively where expert opinion is not divided25 and there is a fair chance that a consensus can emerge amongst the diverse group of stakeholders. Even though the advent of public interest litigation and innovative procedural pathways such as judicial commissions threaten to obliterate the law/policy divide, the successes of the new approach in India and Pakistan have been welcomed by a public that has long been used to an apathetic legislature and a weak executive.26 As long as environmental protection remains a low priority item for the political establishment and the State Machinery, courts in Pakistan will increasingly be called upon to give practical significance to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. However, it should be borne in mind that the activism of the courts is not a substitute for proper policy making and implementation as judicial intervention is by its very nature reactive and hemmed in by the procedural pathways that are peculiar to the legal process. The countries of South Asia are still in the early stages of environmental consciousness27 and although public awareness of environmental issues is improving with each passing year, prioritizing environmental concerns in national planning and steady implementation of laws and policies is of paramount importance. 25. In the Indian dam case, Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sanearsh Samiti v. State of U.P (1992) Supp 1 SCC 44, the Supreme Court held that it did "not possess the requisite expertise to render any final opinion on the rival contentions of the experts. In our opinion the Court can only investigate and adjudicate the question as to whether the Government was conscious to the inherent danger as pointed out by the petitioners and applied its mind to the safety of the dam. We have already given facts in detail, which show that the Government has considered the question on several occasions in the light of the opinions expressed by the experts. The Government was satisfied with the report of the experts and only thereafter clearance has been given to the project." 26. See Ashok Desai and S. Muralidhar, "Public Interest Litigation: Potential and Problems" in B.N. Kirpel et al.. (ed.) Supreme But Not Infallible: Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India, Oxford (2000) 159 , on the appeal of public interest litigation in India despite the lingering questions about its constitutional legitimacy. For the Pakistan over-view, see generally Parvez Hassan and Azim Azfar, supra note 1 at 216-217. 27. The dissemination and easy availability of information is crucial to any public attempt to improve environmental consciousness and activity. Jona Razzaque notes that "in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, there is no right to environmental information or right of public participation in decisions-making...There should be a specific Act or guidelines to deal with the availability of environmental information, outlining which information is available and how to go about asking for it from the government, from private individuals and companies". See Jona Razzaque "Human Rights and the Environment - National Experience" (2002) 32 Environmental Policy and Law 99, at 107. On this and other requirements for good environmental governance, see generally, Parvez Hassan, "Elements of Good Environmental Governance" (2001) 6 (1) Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law 1, also in Donna G. Craig, Nicholas A. Robinson and Koh Kheng-Lian, Capacity Building for Environmental Law in the Asian and Pacific Region - Approaches and Resources, Volume II, at 985. Though this paper has pointed to the usefulness of appointment of Commissions/Committees in public interest environmental litigation, this experience may be relevant to all other public interest litigation in which technical and specific backgrounds and skills are required. The Supreme Court has recently shown this lead in the appointment of Commissions to examine flood relief efforts (December, 2010) and for soliciting recommendations in loans write off cases (March, 2011).