M.C. MEHTA vs.

UNION OF INDIA

1987 AIR 1086 1987 SCR (1) 819

1987 SCC (1) 395 JT 1987 (1) 1

1986 SCALE (2)1188

FACTS:

M.C. Mehta case is the famous tort law case which brought in the principle of

absolute liability. Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industry, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills

Limited, was engaged in the manufacture of dangerous chemical. In December 1985, large

amounts of oleum gas leaked form one of the units in the heart of Delhi which resulted in the

death of several persons. The leakage, resulted from the bursting of a tank containing oleum

gas, was caused by mechanical and human errors. It created a scare among the people

residing nearby and within two days, another leakage, a minor one, broke out as a result of

oleum gas escaping from the joints of a pipe. On 6th December 1985, the District Magistrate,

Delhi ordered Shriram to stop the manufacturing and processing of hazardous chemicals and

fertilizers at their establishment in Delhi and to remove such chemicals and gases from Delhi.

At this particular point, M.C. Mehta moved to Supreme Court to file PIL and claim for

compensation for the losses caused and also demanded that the closed establishment should

not restart.

ISSUE:
 The issues involved here are:

1. What is the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32

since the application for compensation are sought to be maintained under Article?

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 industry vital to

public interest and with potential to affect the life and health of the people?

3. What is the measure of the 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 is injured?

HOLDING:

The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has come on a reference

made by a Bench of three Judges. The reference was made because certain questions of

seminal importance and high constitutional significance were raised in the course of

arguments when the writ petition was originally heard. It is enough to say that the Bench of

three Judges permitted Shriram to restart its power plant. But after the leakage, it was

necessary to give this reference to the Bench of five Judges. The first issue which is

concerned with the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article

32, Bhagwati J., in Bandhua Mukti Morcha V Union of India, held that the scope and ambit

of Article 32 of the Constitution of India does not only confer power on this Court to issue a

direction, order or writ for the enforcement of fundamental rights but it also lays a

constitutional obligation on this Court to protect the fundamental rights of the people and for

that purpose the court has all incidental and ancillary powers including the power to make

and adopt new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce the fundamental
rights. The second question which was concerned with the availability of Article 21, the

Honourable Court said that they do not propose to decide any definite statement at this stage

as it needs detailed consideration. For the third issue, which was concerned with the

compensation, the court decided to direct Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board to take up the

cases of all those who claim to have been suffered by the oleum gas and file actions on their

behalf in the appropriate court for claiming compensation against Shriram and the Delhi

Administration is directed to provide the necessary funds to the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice

Board for the purpose of filing and prosecuting such actions.

RATIONALE:

The first issue of the scope and ambit of Article 32 was referred by Bhagwati from

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India and it explained Article 32 of the Constitution

very effectively and was satisfactory. The second issue could not be stated because of the

insufficient time to consider and reflect on the question in depth. It required detailed

consideration. In the third issue, the Court directed Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board to take

up the cases of all those who claim to have been suffered by the oleum gas because they do

not think it would be justified if they set up special machinery for investigation of the claims

for compensation made by those who allege that they have been the victims of the oleum gas

escape.

ANALYSIS

After reading the case, I feel that the decision made by the Supreme Court

regarding compensation is completely justifiable. Directing Delhi Legal Aid and Advice

Board to take up the cases of all those who claim to have been suffered by the oleum gas and

file actions on their behalf in the appropriate court for claiming compensation against
Shriram is the suitable decision which needs to be here. The Honourable Supreme Court felt

that the English doctrine of Strict Liability adopted by the House of Lords in Rayland v.

Fletcher would not suffice the changing need of the liability principle in India. So the

Honourable Supreme Court felt the need of adopting the principle of Absolute Liability or

else the Court of law would fail to provide justice to the victims of this large scale

environmental disaster. Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently

dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of

such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas

the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the

accident. The principle that came up with this historical case was the principle of Absolute

liability, the polluters has to pay, adequate precautionary measures be taken and highest

safety standards be kept in mind. After this case, the definition of Article 21 was enlarged by

approving Right to clean environment, Right to human health and Right to live pollution free

from air and water as a part of Right to life. Till date, the Court is thinking of providing more

compensation to the victims, as people who are living even today in the area where the

tragedy took place are suffering a lot, as the oleum gas is still present in the atmosphere.

Whatever be the situation, I hope that the Court will definitely provide the victims with

appropriate compensation because justice is required and has to be done to the people

suffered.

 Zaman Ali
Section ‘C’