MC Mehta v Union of India
Introduction
This 1986 case, whose petitioner’s side was spearheaded by the erstwhile lawyer and activist M. C. Mehta, was one of the first one of its kind in many areas of law, including environmental law, which saw an overwhelming change in its scope, extent, and application and it even managed to direct the public’s attention towards Article 21 of the Constitution which deals with right to life and personal liberty, forcing the judiciary to scrutinize it and bring it on par with the other similar rights provided in developed countries.
All in all, this judgment which also came at the heels of the 1984 Bhopal Gas Disaster, another environmental tragedy which took countless lives and left many more crippled for life in addition to severely affecting the environment was a turning point in the history of the Indian law system and compelled both the government and the judiciary to see such issues with a fresh pair of lenses, helping them recognise the underlying legal issues in such events and invoking new evolved legal principles.
Pre-Case Years
All this mayhem started from the Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries, a subsidiary company owned by Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. The subsidiary had many small plants packed in a single complex spread over 76 acres of land and was adjacent to a very densely populated area. Each unit specialised in manufacturing a single chemical from a variety of which the enterprise made like Hydrochloric Acid, caustic soda, anhydrous sodium sulphate, caustic soda, sulphuric acid, etc. in the production of these chemicals the plants regularly used soap, bleaching powder, superphosphate, etc. The main plant, the caustic chlorine plant, which was the culprit for everything, had started its operations in 1949 and there were approximately 263 employees working there.
After the Bhopal gas leak in 1984, the Centre had co-opted a firm called ‘Technica’ to inspect these kinds of plants which produced harmful chemicals and report to them. The firm in March 1985 submitted a preliminary report on the Shriram caustic chlorine plant citing their worries about Major a potentially major leakage from the plant along with various recommendations to fix the problems and the concerned areas. Following this report the petitioner in the present case M. C. Mehta filed a writ petition for closer of all the plants owned by Shriram based on Technica’s report and the hazard the plants will cause being in the middle of the suburbs. While this petition was on waitlist the oleum gas started leaking in small spurts from the Shriram plants for which the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice board and the Delhi Bar Association filed awards of compensation. Contesting these petitions Shriram filed a counter-civil petition.
Facts of the Case
4th December 1985 was the fateful day when the Caustic Chlorine plant, from the Shriram manufacturing units, managed to leak a heavy dosage of oleum gas. It caused great suffering not only to the employees working there but many of the general population living there. The tragedy attracted even more agitation when a lawyer practicing in the Tis Hazari Court died from inhaling the poisonous gas leaked from the plant.
Due to this latest development, the Delhi Administration immediately sprang into action and issued an order under Section 133(1) of the Code of criminal procedure, 1973 to Shriram. The next day when the previous petitions were brought up for hearing the Supreme Court halted the order because of present inadequacies.
Issues
There were many issues raised in this case. Some of the important ones were:
- Did the Supreme Court have the authority to allow the Shriram Caustic Chlorine plant to restart under Section 32?
- What are the conditions that an industrial unit needs to fulfil to function in a highly populated area?
- How valid are the decisions of environmental law courts in India regionally?
Judgment
The judgment in this case covered a range of areas of law and legal principles. This case the first of a kind where the Supreme court decided to go with a more humane approach keeping in view the injuries suffered by the employees and the affected general populace. On the question of relocating the caustic chlorine plant the consensus of the jury was to relocate it. The Court also directed the government to form a policy to determine the location of such hazardous plants. Even if Shriram was complying with all the regulation of the Air and Water prevention and control of pollution Acts the SC gave full leeway to the central pollution control Board to take any action if they detect any violations. The Court’s final decision was to let the plant reopen if and only if they strictly follow the court’s order and also compensate all victims of the leak and also set up a fund with the registrar to pay compensation to any future emerging victims.
Post case years
After the pronouncement of this decision the court directed the central government to set up a high-powered authority to especially investigate the matters concerning such heavy and hazardous industries. The government was also told to set up special environmental courts. During the ruling of this the Supreme Court also discussed about extending its ambit under Article 32 by reiterating some other landmark cases like S. P. Gupta v Union of India, People’s Union For Democratic Rights And Others v. Union Of India & Others (1982) and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors. (1984). The most important development from this case was the creation of a new principle of liability which was the principle of absolute liability. Whereas before in the rule of strict liability still provided the defendant with some defences, in case of absolute liability the defendant had no defences if he was engaged in hazardous activity and the hazardous thing escaped, even without his fault. Later in 1991 to help the victims of such incidents and to ensure that they are provided with adequate compensation the Public Liability Insurance Act was developed.
Conclusion
This case is regarded as a landmark one as it is one of the rare cases where a large corporation like Delhi Cloth mills Ltd. was held liable for their actions. Usually, these corporations get away with mostly everything be like legal compliance, employee safety standards or environmental regulations. So, a judgment like this was not only a refreshing surprise to the public but also to the judicial and environmental activists who have been pushing for such reforms for years. This case has set a precedent for many such case in the future.
Written by Atiya Shahab
0 Comments