TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………….

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………

STATEENT OF FACT……………………………………………………….

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………..

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………..

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUES
The Constitution of India,1950.

LEGAL DATABASES
 MANUPATRA
 SCC ONLINE
 INDIAN KANOON
CASES
 Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
 Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990)
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986)
 Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union
of India (1996)
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under article 32 of
the Constitution of India. The respondents humbly submits to this jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble court.
 STATEMENT OF FACT

The case of C.M. Mehta v. union of India ,also known as the oleum gas leak case,
is a pivotal judgment in the annals of Indian environment law . The incident that
led to this landmark litigation at the laxman foods and fertilizers industries ,a
subsidiary of Punjab cloth mills ltd. ,situated in a densely populated area of Delhi .
on December 4th and 6th ,2023,there was a leakage of oleum gas from one of the
units of the laxman complex . The hazardous incident resulted in the exposure of a
large number of people to the toxic gas ,causing one fatality and several
injuries .The leakage raised serious concerns about the operation of hazardous
industries within the close proximity to residential area .

CM Mehta an environment activist and lawyer , filed a writ petition under article
32 of the constitution of India , invoking the supreme courts jurisdiction to protect
the fundamental rights of the citizens . The petition highlighted the negligence and
lack of safety measures at the industrial complex , which posed a severe threat to
the life and health of the local community.

The petitioner also brought into focus the conflict between industrial development
and environmental conservation . He questioned the adequacy of existing legal
Frameworks to safeguard the public from the dangers of industrial activities and
sought to establish stricter liability for industries dealing with hazardous
substances.

The Supreme court called upon to address the pressing need for legal regime that
would ensure the right to a safe and healthy environment as an extension of the
right to life under article 21 of the constitution. The petitioner also requested the
supreme court to interpret the limits of the principal of strict liability, which had
been the standard for determining industrial responsibility for accidents
disasters .Closure of this industrial and compensation for victims was also sought .
The aftermath of the Oleum gas leak prompted the Supreme court to reconsider the
legal principal governing the operation of hazardous industries and the extent of
their liability in the event of an accident.
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1) Whether the right to clean and healthy environment is
implicit within the right to life under article 21 of the Indian
Constitution?
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
2) Whether the right to clean and healthy environment is
implicit within the right to life under article 21 of the Indian
Constitution?

Your Honor,

In response to the issue raised in CM Mehta vs Union of India, regarding

whether the right to a clean and healthy environment is implicitly included
within the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, we,
representing Laxman Foods and Fertilizers, present the following arguments
and legal analysis:

Firstly, while Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, the
interpretation of environmental rights as integral to this provision requires a
nuanced approach. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized
environmental protection as crucial but has also emphasized the need for a
balanced approach considering economic development and public welfare.

The unfortunate Oleum gas leak incident in December 2023 was indeed
tragic, and we extend our deepest sympathies to those affected. However, it
is important to note that Laxman Foods and Fertilizers operates under
stringent regulatory oversight, adhering strictly to safety protocols and
environmental regulations prescribed by competent authorities. Our
commitment to safety and environmental stewardship is evident through
regular inspections and compliance audits.

The petitioner's plea for stricter liability and an expansive interpretation of

Article 21 must be viewed in light of established legal precedents. In M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the Supreme Court delineated principles for
environmental protection and industrial liability, emphasizing the need for a
balanced approach that safeguards both public health and industrial growth.
Similarly, the concept of strict liability, discussed in Charan Lal Sahu v.
Union of India (1990), underscores the requirement for evidence of
negligence to determine liability in industrial accidents.

Furthermore, any broadening of Article 21 to explicitly encompass the right

to a clean environment should be approached cautiously, considering the
 potential impact on industrial operations and economic stability, especially
in densely populated areas.

In conclusion, while acknowledging the importance of environmental

conservation, Laxman Foods and Fertilizers urges the court to uphold the
existing legal framework, ensuring a balanced approach that respects
regulatory compliance while safeguarding industrial operations. We remain
committed to upholding safety standards and mitigating environmental risks
in our operations.

3) Does the principal of strict liability sufficiently address the

harm caused by industries engaged inherently dangerous
activities?

Your Honor,

Firstly, it is crucial to acknowledge the tragic consequences of the Oleum

gas leak, which resulted in one fatality and several injuries, highlighting the
serious implications of industrial accidents in densely populated areas like
Delhi. The incident has prompted significant scrutiny of our operations and
the broader implications of hazardous industries operating near residential
zones.

Strict liability, as a foundational principle in Indian environmental law,

imposes a duty on industries to prevent harm and compensate victims for
damages caused by their activities, irrespective of fault. This principle was
articulated in cases such as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986), where the
Supreme Court emphasized the accountability of industries for industrial
disasters. The court underscored the importance of strict liability in ensuring
prompt restitution to affected individuals and communities.
Furthermore, the legal framework surrounding strict liability has evolved to
address the complexities of hazardous activities. Indian Council for Enviro-
Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) reinforced the judiciary's commitment
to protecting public health and the environment by upholding stringent
standards of liability for industries dealing with hazardous substances. This
case highlighted the judiciary's role in enforcing regulatory compliance and
enhancing safety measures to prevent future incidents.

In the context of Laxman Foods, while the Oleum gas leak was a regrettable
event, we have consistently adhered to regulatory guidelines and safety
 protocols. We acknowledge that strict liability ensures accountability and
provides a mechanism for compensating victims promptly. It serves as a
deterrent, encouraging industries to adopt proactive measures to mitigate
risks and uphold public safety.

Moreover, strict liability aligns with constitutional guarantees under Article

21, which enshrines the right to a safe and healthy environment as a
fundamental right. The judiciary's interpretation of this right has reinforced
the application of strict liability to safeguard public welfare and
environmental integrity.

In conclusion, Laxman Foods submits that strict liability sufficiently

addresses the harm caused by industries engaged in inherently dangerous
activities. It promotes a culture of responsibility and compliance, ensuring
that industries uphold their duty to protect public health and safety. While
improvements in safety standards and regulatory oversight are continuous
endeavors, strict liability remains a cornerstone in achieving justice for
affected communities and advancing environmental protection.

4) Should the rule of absolute liability be applied to industries

involved in hazardous activities, holding them responsible
wit6hout any exception?

Your Honor,

Absolute liability, as articulated in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987),

imposes a strict responsibility on industries for harm caused by hazardous
activities, irrespective of precautions taken or fault. While this principle
aims to ensure accountability and prompt compensation for victims, its
application without exceptions could lead to unintended consequences.

Firstly, absolute liability could unfairly burden industries that comply with
rigorous safety standards and regulatory requirements. It may fail to consider
situations where industries have taken reasonable precautions to prevent
accidents but are faced with unforeseen circumstances beyond their control,
such as natural disasters or sabotage.

Moreover, the doctrine of absolute liability may discourage innovation and

investment in industries critical to economic growth and development.
Industries might hesitate to adopt advanced technologies and practices aimed
 at improving safety and minimizing risks, fearing disproportionate liability
even in scenarios where the risk is inherently low.

Furthermore, the judiciary has recognized the need for a nuanced approach
in determining liability in hazardous activities. Indian Council for Enviro-
Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) highlighted the importance of
considering factors like the foreseeability of harm and the degree of risk
involved when adjudicating cases of industrial accidents.

In the context of Laxman Foods, while we acknowledge our responsibility to

operate safely and mitigate risks, absolute liability without exceptions would
undermine efforts towards proactive risk management and environmental
stewardship. It is essential to uphold principles of fairness and
proportionality in liability, ensuring that industries are held accountable for
negligence or non-compliance while fostering an environment conducive to
sustainable industrial practices and economic growth.

Therefore, Laxman Foods advocates for maintaining strict liability as the

guiding principle, supplemented by enhanced regulatory oversight and
proactive risk mitigation strategies. This approach strikes a balance between
accountability and incentivizing continuous improvement in safety standards
and operational practices.

In conclusion, while tragedies like the Oleum gas leak necessitate robust
regulatory responses, absolute liability without exceptions may not align
with the principles of fairness and practicality needed for effective industrial
governance. Upholding a balanced approach in liability determination is
crucial for ensuring public safety, environmental protection, and sustainable
development.

5) What measures should be taken to prevent the operation of

hazardous industries in densely populated areas, and how
should liability and compensation?

Your Honor,
Regarding the allegations of negligence and lack of safety measures at our
industrial complex, Laxman Foods maintains that we have always adhered to
stringent safety protocols and regulatory standards mandated by relevant
authorities. The leak was an unfortunate and isolated incident, not reflective of
systemic neglect on our part. Nonetheless, we are committed to continuous
improvement in our safety measures and emergency response protocols to prevent
any such incidents in the future.

Addressing the broader issue raised by the petitioner regarding the operation of
hazardous industries in densely populated areas, Laxman Foods emphasizes the
need for a balanced approach. While ensuring public safety is paramount, it is
crucial to consider the socio-economic implications of stringent regulations that
could potentially jeopardize jobs and economic stability in local communities.
Clear and enforceable zoning laws that designate suitable areas for hazardous
industries away from residential zones should be implemented. This would
mitigate risks to public health while allowing for industrial development in safer
environments.

In terms of liability and compensation, Laxman Foods acknowledges its

responsibility to provide fair and timely compensation to the victims of the Oelum
gas leak. We believe in the importance of a legal framework that ensures swift and
equitable compensation processes, guided by transparent guidelines and
procedures. It is imperative that all affected parties receive just compensation for
their losses and suffering, while also ensuring that the legal principles governing
industrial liability are clear and consistently applied.

Furthermore, Laxman Foods supports initiatives to enhance community

engagement and transparency. Establishing mechanisms for regular dialogue with
local communities and stakeholders will foster trust, improve safety awareness,
and strengthen emergency preparedness.

In conclusion, Your Honor, Laxman Foods reiterates its commitment to safety,

environmental stewardship, and community well-being. We seek a fair and
balanced resolution that upholds these principles while addressing the complexities
of industrial operations in densely populated areas. Our goal is to contribute
positively to economic growth while ensuring the highest standards of safety and
compliance.
 Prayer
Wherefore in the light of the issue raised arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is humbly requested that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to adjudge and
declare: