Scribd
Upload
469 views3 pages

Case Analysis - M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

The landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India originated after a gas leak from a fertilizer plant in Delhi killed one person and hospitalized others. M.C. Mehta filed a public interest litigation seeking compensation for those affected by the leak. The Supreme Court ruled that industries involved in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities will be held strictly and absolutely liable for any accidents that harm people, with compensation amounts depending on the industry's size and wealth. The court developed the principle of "absolute liability" for such industries and directed a legal aid board to file compensation claims in court on behalf of those affected within two months.

Uploaded by

rasheshpatel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
469 views3 pages

Case Analysis - M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

The landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India originated after a gas leak from a fertilizer plant in Delhi killed one person and hospitalized others. M.C. Mehta filed a public interest litigation seeking compensation for those affected by the leak. The Supreme Court ruled that industries involved in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities will be held strictly and absolutely liable for any accidents that harm people, with compensation amounts depending on the industry's size and wealth. The court developed the principle of "absolute liability" for such industries and directed a legal aid board to file compensation claims in court on behalf of those affected within two months.

Uploaded by

rasheshpatel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

CaseAnalysis:M.C.Mehtav.UnionofIndia.

PostedonSeptember18,2016bylawupdaterblog
120pxEmblem_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_India.svg
M.C.Mehtawasthelandmarkcaseintortsandwascausetobringtheprincipleofabsoluteliabilityrulethe
courtgavethisprincipleinhiscommentonthiscase.
Facts:
ThecaseofM.C.Mehtav.UnionofIndiaoriginatedintheaftermathofoleumgasleakfromShriramFood
andFertilizersLtd.complexatDelhi.ThisgasleakoccurredsoonaftertheinfamousBhopalgasleakand
createdalotofpanicinDelhi.Onepersondiedintheincidentandfewwerehospitalized.Thecaselays
downtheprincipleofabsoluteliabilityandtheconceptofdeeppockets.SriramwasasubsidiaryofDelhi
ClothMillsLimited,wasengagedinthemanufactureofdangerouschemical.
EarlyDecision:
On6December1985,theDistrictMagistrate,DelhiorderedShriramtostopthemanufacturingand
processingofhazardouschemicalsandfertilizersattheirestablishmentinDelhiandtoremovesuch
chemicalsandgasesfromDelhi.Atthisparticularpoint,M.C.MehtamovedtoSupremeCourttofilePILand
claimforcompensationforthelossescausedandalsodemandedthattheclosedestablishmentshouldnot
restart
Issues:
1.WhatisthescopeandambitofthejurisdictionoftheSupremeCourtunderArticle32sincetheapplication
forcompensationaresoughttobemaintainedunderArticle?
2.WhetherArticle21isavailableagainstShriramwhichisownedbyDelhiClothMillsLimited,apublic
companylimitedbysharesandwhichisengagedinindustryvitalto
publicinterestandwithpotentialtoaffectthelifeandhealthofthepeople?
3.Whatisthemeasureoftheliabilityofanenterprisewhichisengagedinahazardousorinherently
dangerousindustry,ifbyreasonofanaccidentoccurringinsuchindustry,personsdieorisinjuredues
involvedhereare?
CourtComment:

Onthequestionofdevelopinganewdoctrinetoattachliabilitythecourtcommentedthat:
Wemustalsodealwithoneotherquestionwhichwasseriouslydebatedbeforeusandthatquestionisasto
whatisthemeasureofliabilityofanenterprisewhichisengagedina
hazardousorinherentlydangerousindustry,ifbyreasonofanaccidentoccurringinsuchindustry,persons
dieorareinjured.DoestheruleinRylandsv.Fletcherapplyoristhereanyotherprincipleonwhichthe
liabilitycanbedetermined?TheruleinRylandsv.Fletcherwasevolvedintheyear1866anditprovidesthat
apersonwhoforhisownpurposesbeingontohislandandcollectsandkeepsthereanythinglikelytodo
mischiefifitescapesmustkeepitathisperiland,ifhefailstodoso,isprimafacieliableforthedamage
whichisthenaturalconsequenceofitsescape.Theliabilityunderthisruleisstrictanditisnodefencethat
thethingescapedwithoutthatpersonswilfulact,defaultorneglectoreventhathehadnoknowledgeofits
existence.Thisrulelaiddownaprincipleofliabilitythatifapersonwhobringsontohislandandcollects
andkeepsthereanythinglikelytodoharmandsuchthingescapesanddoesdamagetoanother,heisliableto
compensateforthedamagecaused.
Ofcourse,thisruleappliesonlytononnaturaluserofthelandanditdoesnotapplytothingsnaturallyonthe
landorwheretheescapeisduetoanactofGodandanactofastrangerorthedefaultofthepersoninjured
orwherethethingwhichescapesispresentbytheconsentofthepersoninjuredorincertaincaseswhere
thereisstatutoryauthority.Wewouldthereforeholdthatwhereanenterpriseisengagedinahazardousor
inherentlydangerousactivityandharmresultstoanyoneonaccountofanaccidentintheoperationofsuch
hazardousorinherentlydangerousactivityresulting,forexample,inescapeoftoxicgastheenterpriseis
strictlyandabsolutelyliabletocompensateallthosewhoareaffectedbytheaccidentandsuchliabilityisnot
subjecttoanyoftheexceptionswhichoperatevisvisthetortiousprincipleofstrictliabilityundertherule
inRylandsv.Fletcher.Wewouldalsoliketopointoutthatthemeasureofcompensationinthekindofcases
referredtointheprecedingparagraphmustbecorelatedtothemagnitudeandcapacityoftheenterprise
becausesuchcompensationmusthaveadeterrenteffect.Thelargerandmoreprosperoustheenterprise,the
greatermustbetheamountofcompensationpayablebyitfortheharmcausedonaccountofanaccidentin
thecarryingonofthehazardousorinherentlydangerousactivitybytheenterprise.
Judgement:
SincewearenotdecidingthequestionastowhetherShriramisanauthoritywithinthemeaningofArticle12
soastobesubjectedtothedisciplineofthefundamentalrightunderArticle21,wedonotthinkitwouldbe
justifiedinsettingupaspecialmachineryforinvestigationoftheclaimsforcompensationmadebythose
whoallegethattheyhavebeenthevictimsofoleumgasescape.ButwewoulddirectthatDelhiLegalAid
andAdviceBoardtotakeupthecasesofallthosewhoclaimtohavesufferedonaccountofoleumgasandto
fileactionsontheirbehalfintheappropriatecourtforclaimingcompensationagainstShriram.Suchactions
claimingcompensationmaybefiledbytheDelhiLegalAidandAdviceBoardwithintwomonthsfromtoday

andtheDelhiAdministrationisdirectedtoprovidethenecessaryfundstotheDelhiLegalAidandAdvice
Boardforthepurposeoffilingandprosecutingsuchactions.ThustheHighCourtwasdirectedtonominate
oneormoreJudgesasmaybenecessaryforthepurposeoftryingsuchactionssothattheymaybe
expeditiouslydisposedof.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy