Case law – Mc Mehta vs union of india
The facts of the case are as follows: A writ petition was filed by M.C Mehta, a social activist
lawyer; seeking closure of Shriram Industries as it was engaged in the manufacturing of
hazardous substances and located in a densely populated area of Kirti Nagar, Delhi. While the
petition was pending, on 4 December 1985, there was leakage of oleum gas from one of its units
which caused the death of an advocate and affected the health of several others. The leakage was
caused by a series of mechanical and human errors. This leakage resulted from the bursting of
the tank containing oleum gas as a result of the collapse of the structure on which it was mounted
and it created a scare amongst the people residing in that area. Hardly had the people got out of
the shock of this disaster when, within two days, another leakage, though this time a minor one
took place as a result of escape of oleum gas from the joints of a pipe.
M.C Mehta filed a PIL under Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution and sought closure and
relocation of the Shriram Caustic Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant which was located in a
thickly populated area of Delhi and also for compensation of people who got affected or/and lost
their life.
Issues
The main issues in the case were:
1. What is the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32?
2. Whether Article 21 is available against Shriram which is owned by Delhi Cloth Mills
Limited, a public company limited by shares and which is engaged in an industry vital
to the public interest and with potential to affect the life and health of the people; and
3. What is the measure of liability of an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or
inherently dangerous industry, if by reason of an accident occurring in such industry,
persons die or are injured.
4. Does the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher apply or is there any other principle on which the
liability can be determined?
Summary of court decision and judgment
The Court observed that apart from issuing directions, it also has the power to forge new
remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce fundamental rights under Article 32.
The power under Article 32 is not confined to preventive measures when fundamental rights are
threatened to be violated but it also extends to remedial measures when the rights are already
violated. The Court however held that it has the power to grant remedial relief in appropriate
cases where violation of fundamental rights is gross and patent and affects persons on a large
scale or where affected persons are poor and backward.
But the Court also specified that a petition under Article 32 should not be used as a substitute for
enforcement of the right to claim compensation for infringement of a fundamental right through
the ordinary process of Civil Court. It is only in exceptional cases that compensation may be
awarded in a petition under Article 32. The Court refrained from deciding on the issue of
whether Article 21 is available Shriram Industries as it was of the opinion that this question
needs time and detail discussion and due to lack of time the Court believed that it would be better
if the question is left undecided.
In Rylands vs. Fletcher rule laid down was that if a person who brings on to his land and collects
and keeps there anything likely to do harm and such thing escapes and does damage to another
he is liable to compensate for the damage caused. The liability is thus strict and it is no defence
that the thing escaped without the person’s willful act, default or neglect. The exceptions to this
rule are that it does not apply to things naturally on the land or where the escape is due to an act
of God, act of stranger or the default of the person injured or where there is a statutory authority.
The Court held that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher with all of its exceptions is not applicable for
the industries engaged in hazardous activities expounding that this rule was laid down in the 19th
century and due to advancement in science and technology and our way of living it is the
demand of the century to propound new rule; thus the Court introduced new rule popularly
known as Absolute Liability Rule which states that an industry engaged in hazardous activities
which poses a potential danger to health and safety of the persons working and residing near
owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to
anyone. Such an industry must conduct its activities with the highest standards of safety and if
any harm results, the industry must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm. It should
be no answer to industry to say that it has taken all reasonable care and that harm occurred
without negligence on its Article. Since the persons harmed would not be in a position to isolate
the process of operation from the hazardous preparation of the substance that caused the harm,
the industry must be held absolutely liable for causing such harm as a part of the social cost of
carrying on the hazardous activities. This principle is also sustainable on the ground that the
industry alone has the resource to discover and guard against hazards or dangers and to provide
warning against potential hazards.
