M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086

Introduction

This case is one of the landmark cases of environmental advocacy. This case has its own importance and it is a most relevant chapter in the history of the Indian Judiciary as the Hon’ble Court for the first time held the company wholly liable for the leakage of the gas irrespective of its protection defense and loss demanded. This case set a huge and inspiring example in laying down the strict and estimated security measures for all industries. With the evolution of technologies and industrialization, precarious substances and gases have increased multiple, pretending a great threat to the environment. Hence, In the

case of Oleum Gas leakage the principle of Absolute liability was introduced with the replacement of the principle of Strict Liability, which was applied in the case of Rayland v. Fletcher.

Facts of the Case

A prominent attorney M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India for the closure shifting and relocating of the Shriram Food and Fertilizers Ltd, which was established in the Kriti Nagar Delhi with a dense population of around 200,000 residents. The Shriram Food and Fertilizers Ltd. produces hazardous chemicals like caustic Soda, chlorine, oleum, and some other chemical substances in Fertilizers, and the production of these harmful chemicals leads to the exhalation and ejaculation of toxic gases which is dangerous to people residing in that area. The oleum gas was leaked on the 4^th and 5^th of December 1985 while the petition was still pending in court and one of the units of the plant caused the death of an advocate of Tis Hazari Court and caused harm to the people living in that surrounded area, because of the inhalation of that toxic or dangerous gas. After this incident happened, The Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and Delhi Bar Association applied to demand compensation or damages for the people who suffered the losses.

Issues Raised

1. Whether Shriram Food and Fertilizers Ltd. is allowed to operate in such dense areas and how to settle and determine the responsibility or liability or compensation amount?

• Would the Rule of Strict Liability determined in the case Rylands v. Fletcher be applicable or not?
• Whether the Supreme Court have jurisdiction and authority to be adjudged under Article 32?

Contentions of Parties

It was argued by the petitioner’s side that by analyzing the ruling of the case, ‘Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India’ the court held that Article 32 of the Indian Constitution not only gives the full authority to the Court to announce direct orders or writs to enforce the fundamental rights but also issuing a constitutional obligation on the court to safeguard those rights. Further, the court has all the coincidental and ancillary powers, along with the ability to generate new remedies and enforce distinct procedures or techniques to uphold fundamental rights. In the appropriate circumstances, the court has the authority to award compensation and damages. So, under Article 32 the present application for compensation is therefore maintainable.

The petitioner argued that such an Industry should be ordered to immediate permanent closure. Because it would violate the fundamental right safeguarded under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and put the lives, health, and environment of the community residing nearby at risk. The petitioner contended that there is a legal obligation over the Shriram Industry to take all the essential measures to save the lives of the people residing surroundings.

The Respondent argued that the Shriram Industry was administering and

performing according to the rules and regulations specified by the Government’s Industrial Policy and eventually intended to hold the working of that Industry on its own. Shriram Industry was authorized to do so while working under the straight supervision and direction of the Government. According to the respondent’s counsel, the control, rules, and regulations of the working of the private corporation under the statutes of the board like the industries (Development and Regulation) Act 1951 only show the State’s utility of its police power to regulate. The Private corporation’s activity cannot change by this legislation to become the activity of the state. The counsel argued that the rule of strict liability must applied in this case which was laid down in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher.

Judgment

The Supreme Court has issued a great ruling that it was not necessary to comply with the Rule of English Law from the 19^th century and may alternatively develop an appropriate rule for the social and economic circumstances prevailing in India at the time. It replaced the rule of strict liability ruled in Rylands v. Fletcher with the Rule of “Absolute Liability” as a part of the Law of India. It clearly states that none of the rules and regulations mentioned in Rylands v. Fletcher applied to the new rule.

The Court further said that if a toxic gas leakage causes any death or injury to the employees, workers, and nearby residents then the industry will be personally accountable for paying compensation and damages.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court took a very analytical and logical decision in this case and made it comprehensible and clear that the closure of such type of industries would create a barrier to the country’s development several conditions were drafted for the proper safety of the people and the environment also so that there would be no barrier in the development of the country and there would be no hazardous disasters like leakage of the oleum gas. The Hon’ble Court strictly focused on the social, economic, and legal aspects of the society most relevantly protection of the environment and the interest of the public.

Reference

http://www.indiankanoon.com

https://wwwmain.sci.gov.in

Written by Vipasha Mehta, Legal Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin