PRITI LAW ACADEMY COLLEGE
STUDENT NAME :- KADAM NILAM CHANDRAKANT
STD :- F.Y LL.B (SEM-I)
SEAT NO – 65
SUBJECT :- LAW OF TORT
-: TOPIC :-
Principle of Absolute Liability: Bhopal Gas Disaster case and Shree Ram
Food Oleum Gas Leakage case and orientation to public liability Insurance
Act, 199
WHAT IS ABSOLUTE LIABILITY?
The idea of absolute liability developed in India, in the case of M.C. Mehta versus Association of
India prominently also called as Oleum gas leak case. This case becomes one of the milestones
because the total risk guideline came in this case. This standard is a sort of severe responsibility
without any special case. That is under this guideline the respondent will not be permitted to
argue any safeguard as there was under Rylands versus Fletcher case.
For this situation, the case was emerging from the spillage of oleum gas from the Shriram Food
and Fertilizers Industries located in Delhi and it was owned by Delhi cloth mill limited and because
of this spillage there was an immense death toll and numerous individuals experienced genuine
wounds. The case was documented by a writ request under workmanship 32 of the Constitution
via PIL. This was a case following 1 year of Bhopal Gas Leak case, in which likewise numerous
individuals kicked the bucket. Along these lines, it was felt that there was a need to grow new
guidelines as under severe obligation there were exemptions accessible for the respondent from
which they can without much of a stretch flee from their risk. Subsequently, the new principle for
example the standard of supreme risk was set down.
Under this standard, if any individual is occupied with any unsafe action and on the off chance
that any mischief happens while completing such movement, the individual will be expected to
take responsibility for the damage or the harm so happened under total obligation. Under this, he
will not be permitted to accept any exemption as was under the standard of Strict Liability. This
rule was set down based on the possibility that the endeavour who is procuring benefit from the
overall population ought to likewise be held responsible if mischief happened because of their
flaw. This standard was additionally applied to the Bhopal situation where a large number of
Public Liability Insurance Act,
1991
The M.C. Mehta case’s landmark ruling, which introduced the doctrine of absolute liability, laid the
groundwork for the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991. This Act was a response to the need for a
legal framework to address liability and compensation in cases of industrial accidents,
particularly highlighted by incidents like the Oleum Gas Leak and the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The
objective of the Act is to provide immediate relief to individuals affected by accidents involving
hazardous substances.
It requires industries handling such substances to take out insurance policies, ensuring immediate
relief to the affected persons without waiting for lengthy legal procedures. The Act applies to all
owners associated with producing or handling hazardous chemicals, encouraging industries to
adhere to safety guidelines and take preventive measures.
The influence of the M.C. Mehta case on this legislation is profound, as the judgment set a
precedent for holding industries absolutely liable, directly shaping the Act’s formulation. The Act’s
impact on industrial practices includes promoting corporate responsibility and providing a
financial mechanism to compensate victims promptly. However, some critics argue that the Act’s
scope is limited and only covers some hazardous industries, and there have been challenges in
implementation and enforcement. Despite these criticisms, the legacy of the M.C. Mehta case
continues to be cited and has lasting implications for environmental law and policy in India.
The Public Liability Insurance Act 1991 is a significant legislative response to the principles
established in the M.C. Mehta case, playing a crucial role in shaping industrial responsibility and
environmental protection in India.
Doctrine of Absolute Liability
Essentials of Principle of absolute liability
Absolute liability and strict liability are comparable in that they both
call for the presence of risks, their avoidance, and the ensuing damage.
As a result, the following constitute the fundamental components of
absolute liability:
-Hazardous Items or Substances
- These Items or Substances' Escape
-Materials that are dangerous or necessarily dangerous
The presence of hazardous or inherently dangerous substances on the
premises makes a significant difference in the basis for absolute
liability. This implies that a defendant is totally liable if such substances
escape from their property if they are in possession of them, regardless
of their intended use. Liability is centered on the fundamental
characteristics of things rather than how they are used.
Shree Ram Foods Oleum Gas Leakage Case (1986)
The Oleum Gas Leak Case, also known as MC Mehta v. Union of India, is
a landmark environmental case in India. It involved a gas leak incident
at the Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industries plant, a subsidiary of Delhi
Cloth Mills Limited, situated in Kirti Nagar, Delhi.
In December 1985, there was an escape of oleum gas from one of the
units at the factory, which resulted in severe harm to the people who
were exposed to the gas. The incident raised concerns about the safety
and environmental standards of the factory and its potential impact on
the surrounding community.
MC Mehta, a public interest attorney, filed a writ petition under Articles
21 and 32 of the Indian Constitution in the Supreme Court, seeking the
closure and relocation of the hazardous plant. During the legal
proceedings, questions were raised about the scope of the Supreme
BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY
(UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA)
Shree Ram Foods Oleum Gas Leakage Case (1986)
The Oleum Gas Leak Case, also known as MC Mehta v. Union of India, is
a landmark environmental case in India. It involved a gas leak incident
at the Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industries plant, a subsidiary of Delhi
Cloth Mills Limited, situated in Kirti Nagar, Delhi.
In December 1985, there was an escape of oleum gas from one of the
units at the factory, which resulted in severe harm to the people who
were exposed to the gas. The incident raised concerns about the safety
and environmental standards of the factory and its potential impact on
the surrounding community.
MC Mehta, a public interest attorney, filed a writ petition under Articles
21 and 32 of the Indian Constitution in the Supreme Court, seeking the
closure and relocation of the hazardous plant. During the legal
proceedings, questions were raised about the scope of the Supreme
Article 21 and Due Process of Law
The M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case was pivotal in interpreting Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
The judgment expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to a healthy
environment, setting a precedent for future legal interpretations.
Shree Ram Foods Oleum Gas Leakage Case (1986)
