MOOT COURT PROBLEM
Issues
Arguments
Arguments Advanced (in depth)
Overview of the case
Where it occurred:
“Tanvi Mehta v. State of & Zenith Industries Pvt. Ltd”
On 12th March 2025 a dangerous gas leak occurred at
Omega Chemicals Plant operated by Zenith Industries
located in industrial area of New Davanagere. The New
Davanagere had a cyclone on 10-12th March with wind
blowing at 150 km/hr . The plant use to produce
chemical fertilizers and stores Oleum Gas which is a
highly toxic substance used in industrial production.
Cause of the accident:
On the day of the incident , a major gas valve
reportedly malfunctioned leading to leakage of oleum
gas in the environment. Thick clouds of gas spread
rapidly causing breathing problems , dizziness and
panic among locals . Th leak for an hour.
Repercussion of the leak:
Mr Ajay Kumar an advocate working in District
Court passed away due to inhalation of gas.
50 local residents including children and elders had
to be hospitalized for respiratory and skin related
issues.
Schools and offices of that area were shut down for
2 days.
Companies Defence:
Zenith industries in its defence claimed that all safety
protocols were being followed and that the incident was
unexpected and not due to intentional fault. However
later it was revealed that the company had not
installed proper safety valves and did not have
effective disaster management system.
Involvement of Ms. Tanvi Mehta (petitioner)
Ms. Tanvi Mehta a social activist and environmental
lawyer filed a PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) under
ARTICLE 32 of the constitution of India before
supreme court of India , seeking justice for the victims
and accountability from the factory owners.
She claimed that:-
i. The plant was in a residential area violating
safety norms.
ii. Compensation for the affected family and
victim should be given.
iii. The company was engaged in hazardous
activity so in future to prevent such accidents
environmental safeguards and monitoring
of hazardous industries should be there.
iv. It was a serious threat to public safety and
right to healthy environment which she
mentioned in RIGHT TO LIFE UNDER
ARTICLE 21 of the Constitution.
v. Guidelines for corporate accountability in
cases involving dangerous industries.
(May it please the Hon’ble Court. I stand
before you representing the petitioner, Ms.
Tanvi Mehta — a concerned environmental
lawyer and social activist — seeking justice
for the victims of the catastrophic gas leak
at Omega Chemicals Plant operated by
Zenith Industries Pvt. Ltd. I shall be
addressing the three legal issues that arise
from this matter, along with the supporting
arguments and relevant legal reasoning.)
Issues
“May it please the Court, I,
appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, Ms. Tanvi Mehta, shall be
addressing the Hon’ble Court on the
legal issues involved in this matter,
the arguments raised, and the legal
reasoning behind them.”
“The following legal questions arise from
the facts of the case and form the basis
of this Public Interest Litigation…”
ISSUE 1:
Whether the petition is maintainable?
Yes. The petition is maintainable because it
is filed as a Public Interest Litigation
(PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution,
which empowers any person to seek
enforcement of fundamental rights on
behalf of affected citizens. Ms. Tanvi Mehta,
as a social activist and environmental
lawyer, has the right to represent the public
interest, making the petition valid and
acceptable in court.
ISSUE 2
Whether Zenith Industries Pvt. Ltd. can be
held absolutely liable for the gas leak and
the harm caused, even without direct
evidence of negligence?
Yes, Zenith Industries is absolutely
liable for the gas leak and its
consequences. Under the doctrine of
Absolute Liability, as laid down in M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India (1987), any
enterprise engaged in inherently dangerous
activity is liable for any damage caused —
without the need to prove negligence.
In this case, the company failed to install
safety valves and had no disaster
management system, which are serious
lapses in protocol.
ISSUE 3
Whether the fundamental rights under
Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to
Life) were violated?
Yes, the Right to Life under Article 21
was violated.
Article 21 guarantees not just the right to
live, but to live with dignity, safety, and
in a healthy environment. The
company's failure to maintain safety
measures directly endangered human life
and public health. Additionally, the
location of the plant in a residential area
violated environmental and zoning
regulations.
Arguments
i. Zenith Industries was engaged in
inherently hazardous activity
involving Oleum gas, a toxic chemical
that requires the highest safety
standards.
ii. The gas leak led to loss of life, serious
health impacts, and widespread
disruption — regardless of intent, the
damage was real and severe.
iii. As per the doctrine of Absolute
Liability laid down in M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India (1987), any enterprise
involved in dangerous activity is strictly
and unconditionally liable for the
consequences.
iv. No excuse, including natural disasters
or lack of negligence, can free the
company from liability under this
principle.
v. Failure to install proper safety
valves and absence of a disaster
management plan shows reckless
disregard for public safety.
Arguments Advanced
Yes, Zenith Industries Pvt. Ltd. must be held
absolutely liable for the gas leak and its
aftermath, even without direct evidence of
negligence.
The company was handling Oleum gas,
a chemical known to be highly
hazardous and harmful to human life
and the environment.
On the day of the incident, a major
valve malfunction occurred, releasing
toxic gas into the air for over an hour.
This caused:
i. The death of Mr. Ajay Kumar, a
respected advocate,
ii. Hospitalization of over 50
residents, including children and
elderly people, and
iii. Closure of schools and offices,
affecting normal life.
While the company claimed that it had
followed all protocols and blamed the
incident on unexpected factors (like the
cyclone), investigations revealed:
i. No proper safety valves were in
place,
ii. No effective disaster response
system existed.
This shows a serious failure in duty of
care, but under Absolute Liability,
proving negligence isn’t even necessary.
In the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak
Case), the Supreme Court held that:
“Any enterprise engaged in hazardous or
inherently dangerous industry, which
poses a potential threat to the health
and safety of persons, owes an absolute
and non-delegable duty to the
community to ensure no harm results.”
Unlike Strict Liability, this doctrine
has no exceptions — not even an act of
God or third-party interference.
By choosing to operate such a plant in a
residential area and failing to ensure
safety, Zenith Industries showed a
complete disregard for human life
and must bear unlimited liability.
“Hence, based on the issues raised, the
arguments presented, and settled law, it
is clear that Zenith Industries must be
held absolutely liable and Article 21 has
been gravely violated. We now
respectfully seek appropriate reliefs
from this Hon’ble Court.”
Similar Cases
"Your Lordships, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India, the Court laid down the principle of
Absolute Liability, making it clear that
industries handling hazardous substances
are liable for any harm caused. This position
has been reinforced in Indian Council for
Enviro-Legal Action, Vellore Citizens Forum,
and Subhash Kumar, where Article 21 was
interpreted to include the right to a clean
and safe environment. These cases directly
support the petitioner's argument that
Zenith Industries must be held fully
accountable under the law."
1. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action v. Union of India (1996)
Facts: Chemical industries were
dumping toxic sludge, damaging villages
in Rajasthan.
Judgment: The Court reaffirmed
Absolute Liability and imposed heavy
compensation.
Importance: Strengthens your claim
that industries must pay for harm, no
matter what.
Principle highlighted: “Polluter Pays
Principle” and industrial accountability.
2. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v.
Union of India (1996)
Facts: Tanneries in Tamil Nadu were
polluting water sources.
Judgment: Supreme Court introduced
two key environmental principles:
Precautionary Principle
Polluter Pays Principle
Importance: Shows that industries must
take preventive action and pay for
damage — even potential harm.
3. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar
(1991)
Facts: Industrial waste was polluting the
Bokaro river.
Judgment: The Court held that Article
21 includes the right to clean water
and environment.
Importance: Strong support for your
Article 21 violation argument.
Quote-worthy: “Right to life includes the
right to enjoyment of pollution-free water
and air.”
