Author: Rishika Choudhary, Indore Institute Of Law
To the Point
The landmark M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986), or Oleum Gas Leak Case, arose from toxic leaks at Shriram Foods and Fertiliser’s Delhi plant, killing one and injuring many, prompting the Supreme Court to introduce absolute liability for hazardous industries. This principle mandates unconditional accountability for harm caused by inherently dangerous activities and rejects defenses available under strict liability, ensuring compensation scales with the enterprise’s capacity. The judgment thus finely balanced the needs of the industry with those of public safety, allowing the continuance of operations pending stringent safeguards, and environmental law was never the same.
Use of Legal Jargon
Invoking in this public interest litigation Article 32’s epistolary jurisdiction, the coram of five judges, led by CJI P.N. Bhagwati, dilated upon Article 21’s penumbral right to wholesome environment, extending it against non-state actors via res gestae principles. Eschewing Rylands v. Fletcher’s strict liability—encumbered by vis major, actus dei, volenti non fit injuria and plaintiff contributory negligence exceptions—the court enunciated absolute liability: an intrinsically hazardous or ultra-hazardous undertaking incurs non-delegable, vicarious liability sans mens rea, negligence, or faute de l’autre proofs, with damages admeasured by the deep pocket doctrine (enterprise turnover). This proscriptive norm obviates tortious defences, operationalising polluter pays and precautionary principles, and engendered the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, for no-fault liability regimes.
The Proof
Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Ltd., located in thickly populated North Delhi near Tis Hazari Courts, had an oleum gas (98% sulphuric acid fumes) efflux on December 4, 1985, from a tank atop a corroded and inadequately maintained structure, causing asphyxiation of Advocate N.D. Jayalal and affecting more than 200 persons with respiratory distress, blindness, and skin burns. A recidivist minor leak occurred on December 6 from pipe joints, adding to the public trauma since Bhopal (1984). The Court-ordered investigations-Seturaman Committee (IIT Delhi), Nilay Choudhary Panel, and Prof. Dr. Slater’s audit-revealed massive deficiencies: seismic susceptibility of chlorine tank, non-provision of safety valves, non-complying instrumentation within the meaning of Factories Act, 1948 and Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the plant falling within the category of “major hazard facility” incapable of being reduced below the threshold except by relocating it. Claims on behalf of victims filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate showed prima facie negligence and sparked off Article 32 petition for ab initio closure.
Abstract
M.C. Mehta’s PIL of the same name, assailed Shriram’s caustic chlorine/sulphuric acid operations as public nuisance under Section 133 CrPC, assailing Article 21 violations and judicial locus over private enterprises. Issues involved were: (i) Article 32 cognizance without personal locus standi; (ii) applicability of strict liability or absolute liability; and (iii) feasibility of relocation vis-à-vis requirements of industrialization. The bench stayed earlier closure orders, permitting conditional reopening with 10-point decretal directions: “bimonthly expert audits; managerial penal liability; Rs 20 lakhs ad interim solatium with Rs 15 lakhs bank guarantee for oleum victims; and no shield for composite enterprise”. It also called upon siting policies by Parliament for hazardous industries, Environmental Courts, and expeditious redress to victims, while discarding anachronisms of strict liability as unresponsive to the needs of India’s development, thus crystallizing judicial activism in anthropocentric environmental jurisprudence.
Case Laws
• Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330: Origination of strict liability for non-natural land use escapes; exceptions vitiated applicability hence evolution.
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India: Conferred PIL with wide locus standi and epistolary petitions as writs, foundational for environmental suigeneris actions (1981).
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): Liberalized Article 32 procedural norms for disadvantaged, analogized to pollution victims’ in rem rights.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution, 1988): Absolute liability extended to tanneries, and primary effluent treatment was made compulsory.
• Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996): Applied again for Bichhri chemical contamination; enterprise overhaul costs were invoked.
• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): Integrated sustainable development, polluter pays with absolute liability.
• LG Polymers India Pvt. Ltd. v. APPCB, (2020): Post-Vizag styrene leak, the NGT levied Rs 50 crores under the absolute liability rubric.
• Union Carbide Corp. v. Union of India, Bhopal, 1991: Although settlement bound, this judgment shaped the absolute liability discussion without exceptions.
Conclusion
This precedential tour de force transmuted Article 21 into an enforceable environmental droit, compelling hazardous venturers to operationalize highest safety mores, indemnify victims proportionately, and subsidize prevention sans developmental fetters. It germinated statutory progeny like PLIA 1991’s no-fault compensation corpus, NGT’s specialized adjudication, and policy mandating buffer zones/cumulative impact assessments. The legacy continues with deterrence by vicarious sanctions, community empowerment qua PILs, and a balancing of industrialization with ecological imperium to strengthen India’s green constitutionalism against vicissitudes.
FAQS
Q1. What triggered the oleum spills at Shriram?
A: Corrosion causing collapse of the tank structure, combined with maintenance neglect and poor design for chlorine handling.
Q2: Differentiate between absolute and strict liability according to the judgment?
A: Absolute liability nullifies all defences, imposing unconditional duty; strict liability permits act of God, etc.
Q3: Did the court order a permanent closure of the plants?
A: No; it suspended bans, allowing operations under strict 10-point safeguards and monitoring.
Q4: How did this case spawn legislation?
A: Catalysed Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 for mandatory insurance and quick victim relief funds.
Q5: Absolute Liability – Contemporary Relevance:
A: Anchors NGT penalties in chemical spills, such as Vizag 2020, to polluter accountability.
Q6: Role of expert committees in adjudication?
A: Their reports evidenced negligence, hazards, validating relocation advocacy sans blanket bans.
Q7: Compensation mechanics ordained?
A: Rs 20 lakhs immediate pay-out, Rs 15 lakhs guarantee; quantum tied to enterprise capacity.
