MC Mehta vs Union of India (1986) 

Introduction
The environment is frequently seen to suffer as a result of human development. Everything
has an impact on the environment, which is necessary for human existence to exist, from
inappropriate non-biodegradable item disposal to significant industrial discharge. India's
Ganga River, which is revered as being the most sacred river in the country, is currently
receiving massive amounts of home and industrial trash. The issue centres on the river
discharge of hazardous industrial effluents.

The goal of the case analysis is to examine the background information, the facts, the
concerns discussed, the arguments put up by both parties, and the key concepts in the case.

Background of the case

Originating in the Himalayas, the Ganges River flows south and then east until it empties into
the Bay of Bengal. The river is 2,525 km long and has been the lifeblood of many
civilizations in India. With a population of 2.9 million, Kanpur has become one of the largest
cities on the banks of the Ganges, dumping large amounts of garbage into the river. The city's
main pollutant is industrial/commercial wastewater from the leather industry.

Wastewater from this industry contains "degradable organics and toxic inorganics," and when
discharged into water, it reduces dissolved oxygen levels in bodies of water, killing aquatic
organisms and consuming this water. harm everyone. The case was taken up by the Supreme
Court at the written request of Shri MC Mehta, a prominent attorney who is considered a
pioneer in the field of environmental law. - Treatment in the river. The case is also known as
the Ganga Contamination Case, the Kanpur Leather Tannery Case, or Meta I. 

Facts of the case

Shriram, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd., had numerous facilities situated in a single
complex comprising land of roughly 76 acres in a densely populated area. The business
produced various chemicals like sodium hydroxide, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid,
alum, anhydrous sodium sulfate, high test hypochlorite, and active earth, and frequently
utilized items such as bleaching powder, superphosphate, vanaspati, and soap. The caustic
chlorine plant in question was established in 1949 and had a workforce of 263 employees.
After the Bhopal Gas Tragedy in 1984, the Central Government hired a firm named
‘Technica’ to examine the caustic chlorine plant owned by Shriram, and a preliminary report
identifying potential areas of concern and suggestions for improvement were submitted by
the firm. In March 1985, the likelihood and hazards of any significant leakage from the
caustic chlorine plant of Shriram were discussed in Parliament. In response to that, an expert
committee called the Manmohan Singh Committee was established to further examine the
caustic chlorine plant. They submitted a report after a thorough inspection with

1|Page
recommendations for various safety and pollution control measures. The petitioner-in-person
MC Mehta filed the first Civil Writ Petition 12739 of 1985 under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India to seek a direction for the closure of various industrial units owned by
Shriram Foods & Fertilisers Industries (hereafter referred to as ‘Shriram’ for convenience)
since they were located in a heavily populated area in Delhi and were hazardous to the people
living in the vicinity. During the pendency of the abovementioned petition, there was an
incident of leakage of Oleum gas from one of the industrial units of Shriram for which
awards of compensation were filed by both the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and the
Delhi Bar Association. Another Civil Writ Petition 26 of 1986 was filed by Shriram
contesting the validity of multiple orders asking to stop their production. The Supreme Court
established several new legal principles in the case. The landmark judgments were the result
of two Civil Writ Petitions 12739 of 1985 and 26 of 1986.

The initial ruling, issued by a panel of three judges consisting of the then Chief
Justice of India, PN Bhagwati, and Justices DP Madon and GL Oza on February 17th, 1986,
addressed whether the Shriram Foods and Fertilisers-owned caustic chlorine plant should be
permitted to reopen. Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries submitted a petition for
clarification. The court concluded that the request sought changes to certain orders and issued
another order on March 10th, 1986, in response. On December 20th, 1986, a five-judge
bench (also known as the Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution of
India) delivered the final verdict, which addressed significant constitutional issues separately.

On 4th December 1985, a major release of oleum gas occurred from one of the units
of Shriram, causing physical harm to many members of the public including workers and
bystanders. Tragically, an advocate practicing in the Tis Hazari Court lost their life due to
inhalation of the gas. The Delhi Bar Association and petitioner both confirmed the incident.
Two days later, on 6th December, a minor leakage of oleum gas occurred from a pipe joint.
Following these incidents, the Delhi administration took immediate action by issuing an
order under Section 133(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing Shriram to
take the following measures: - Cease the use of hazardous chemicals and gases in the unit
within two days; - Relocate the chemicals to a safer location within seven days, and not store
them in the same place where the disaster occurred again; - Or, appear before the Court of
District Magistrate, Delhi on 17th December 1985 to explain why the order cannot be
enforced. The next day, both writ petitions were presented for hearing in the Supreme Court,
which also acknowledged the District Magistrate's order and recognized that due to
"insufficiencies," it may not be possible to take the necessary steps urgently.

2|Page
Steps taken by the Supreme Court and administrations
Firstly, the Supreme Court, before taking the writ petitions for hearing on 7th December,
1985, appointed a team of experts called the “Nilay Choudhary Committee” to perform an
inspection of the caustic chlorine plant and to report whether the recommendations of the
Manmohan Singh Committee were properly implemented or not. The team conducted a
“cursory inspection” for a few hours and reported verbally that most of the recommendations
were implemented by the management of the plant and the main sources of hazard, two tanks
of chlorine, each with the capacity of one hundred MT, were emptied.

Secondly, the Court also gave the petitioner the liberty to appoint his own team of experts
and was directed to have access to the caustic chlorine plant for inspection of any possible
sources of hazards to the workmen and common people and further checking of the
implementation of the recommendations of the committee.

Thirdly, the Court appointed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate before whom the victims of
oleum gas leakage can claim compensation. The Court also directed the Secretary of Delhi
State Legal Aid and Advice Board to ensure the medical checkup of the victims by experts to
gather evidence against the compensation claimed in the incident.

Steps by the administration

The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi formed an expert committee called the “Setu raman
Committee” on 4th December, 1985, immediately after the first leakage, to inspect the
following:

 Examine the reasons for the leakage and the effects;

 Whether proper safety measures and rules were properly followed by the
management;
 Persons responsible for the leakage;
 Reviewing emergency measures for further risks;
 Examination of risks and hazards from the factory on common people and make
specific recommendations; and
  Advise whether the location of the company should be shifted or not;
The report of the Committee mainly dealt with the safety measures in the sulphuric acid plant
where the oleum gas leakage took place but was referred to by the Supreme Court since it
was relevant regarding the risks and safety measures to be taken in the caustic chlorine to
minimise dangers to the common people. 

During the ongoing hearing in the Supreme Court on 7th December, 1985, the Inspector of
Factories in Delhi exercised the powers given under Section 40(2) of the Factories Act,
1948 and banned Shriram from any further use of both the caustic chlorine and sulphuric acid

3|Page
plants until proper and adequate safety measures were adopted to eliminate the risks posed to
people living nearby.

The Assistant Commissioner of factories under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi sent a 
show cause notice to Shriram on 13th December, 1985 to explain why their licence should
not be cancelled under Section 430(3) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 for
violating the mentioned terms and conditions. After Shriram showed cause, the Assistant
Commissioner directed Shriram to stop using the premises containing the caustic chlorine
plant for any industrial purposes by an order on 24th December, 1985.

However, both the orders by the Inspector and Assistant Commissioner of factories dated 7th
and 24th December, 1985, respectively, were suspended in the first order of the Supreme
Court.

Legal issues dealt in the case of MC Mehta vs. Union of India (1986)

The Supreme Court dealt with multiple legal issues in the two judgements passed
respectively on 17th February and 20th December, 1986.

The first judgement examined the scope of public interest litigation in the area of
environmental laws and mostly dealt with:

 Whether the Supreme Court had the authority under Article 32 to decide Shriram
to restart its caustic chlorine plant?
 What are the necessary conditions to be satisfied in order to run an industrial unit
in a heavily populated area?
 The decision of constitution of Environmental Courts in India regionally.
The constitutionally important questions were discussed in detail in the final judgement. The
legal issues addressed therein are as follows:

 Whether the jurisdiction and authority of the Supreme Court under Article 32 can
be extended;
 Whether applications for compensations to victims are maintainable under the said
Article;
 Whether Shriram falls under “other authorities” as mentioned in Article 12;
 Whether the right to life under Article 21 is available against a private corporation
like Shriram;
 If a letter addressed to any individual judge is maintainable as public interest
litigation;
 What is the liability of any hazardous industry in case of an accident? Whether the
concept of strict liability established in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher

4|Page
 (1868) applicable in such a situation? What should be the amount of compensation
in the case of an accident occurring due to a hazardous industry?
 Whether a new legal principle can be constructed if necessary where the existing
legal principles are not applicable; and
 Lastly, whether the Supreme Court of India is bound to follow the decisions laid
down in foreign case laws. 

Contentions raised by the parties in MC Mehta vs. Union of India (1986)

Arguments by the petitioner

On the basis of the liberty given to him by the Supreme Court, the petitioner-in-person
formed a committee of experts named the “Agarwal Committee” and inspected the caustic
chlorine plant of Shriram. The Committee found multiple inadequacies in the safety measures
and was of the opinion that the complete elimination of hazards was impossible due to the
location of the plant in a densely populated area. Based on the findings, the petitioner-in-
person submitted before the Court that the caustic chlorine plant should not be allowed to
restart since there would always be a significant possibility of hazards to the people living
nearby even if all the recommendations made by all the expert committees were properly
implemented by the management of Shriram.

Submission by counsel for the trade unions

The counsel for Lokahit Congress Union and Karamchari Ekta Union, the two trade unions
of Shriram submitted that the permanent closure of the plant would result in the
unemployment of about 4,000 workmen.

Statement of Additional Solicitor General

The Additional Solicitor General appeared on behalf of both the administration of Delhi and
the Union of India. Both the Delhi administration and the Union of India did not withdraw
their objections on the issue of reopening the plant. However, it was submitted that if the
Court decided to permit the reopening after examining the absence of any real hazards to the
local community, the reopening could only be ordered after imposing strict safety measures
to ensure the safety of the employees as well as the people nearby.

Pleadings of counsel of Shriram

The counsel for Shriram pleaded before the Court to allow Shriram to restart operations in
the caustic chlorine plant since the management of Shriram had taken all the possible steps
and safety measures and implemented all the recommendations made by both the Manmohan

5|Page
Singh Committee and the Nilay Choudhary Committee. With all the precautions, there was
no or very little possibility of leakage of chlorine gas. Furthermore, due to the closing down
of the factory, about 4,000 employees would be unemployed and the Delhi Water Supply
Undertaking would face non-availability of chlorine and a short supply of downstream
products used to purify water. It was also submitted that other plants of Shriram would be
opened after adopting proper maintenance and safety measures.

The counsel also raised a “preliminary objection” before the Court regarding the dealing of
constitutionally significant issues since the leakage occurred after the filing of the petition.
According to him, the petitioner could file an amendment to the writ petition for
compensation. The Court accepted the fact but did not sustain his objection because the Delhi
Legal Aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association had already filed applications for
compensation.

Judgement of the court

The judgement consisted of several important discussions on the points of law and multiple
legal principles, as well as consideration of the arguments. The Court, rather than merely
dealing with legal provisions, applied a humane touch by considering the fates of the
employees. The various aspects of the judgements are discussed as follows:

Decision on the relocation of the caustic chlorine plant

On the question of whether the caustic chlorine plant of Shriram should be permitted to be
restarted or not, the Court referred to the opinions of the various expert committees
constituted earlier. Though the opinions of the expert committees were conflicting, all of
them unanimously expressed the view that the risk to the employees and people outside could
be minimised with the adoption of proper safety measures, but it was not possible to fully
eliminate them. For that reason, the “general consensus” of all the committees was to relocate
the plant.

For future reference, the Court directed the government to form a national policy for the
location of such hazardous industries to eliminate risk factors.

The Court also noted that all the expert committees had the unanimous opinion that
considerable negligence in maintenance and operation and defects in the structure of the plant
were present. However, despite showing initial indifference, since the management of
Shriram later implemented all the recommendations of the three expert committees, the
caustic chlorine plant may be restarted due to the absence of imminent danger to the
employees and the community. The Court also considered the fact that the factor of
unemployment would arise due to the closure of the plant. 

6|Page
Consent order under Water Act and Air Act

The Central Pollution Control Board had raised a question regarding the discharge of

effluents and waste water since they did not properly follow the standards set by the board to
discharge wastes by using appropriate technologies.

Shriram had to obtain a consent order under the Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution)
Act, 1974 for discharging effluents from the plant. So, the Court directed the Central Water
Board to grant a temporary consent order for one month. The Court also asked the Board to
collect samples from discharged effluent to ascertain that the collected samples comply with
the standards mentioned in the consent order. If the standards were found to be violated, the
Board should inform the Court about the violation and might take any action against Shriram
accordingly.

Similarly, the plants of Shriram were situated in the air pollution control area as notified by
the Central Government under Section 19(1) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981. Hence, to run the plant, Shriram had to apply for a consent order under Section
21 of the Act. Shriram complied with all the conditions mentioned in the consent order under
the Air Act, 1981 at that time. However, the Court gave the Board the liberty to take
appropriate disciplinary action against Shriram if the Board found any violations of the
consent order.

Final decision

The final decision by the Supreme Court was to give Shriram permission to reopen the
mentioned plant. Though the earlier two orders passed by the Inspector and Assistant
Commissioner of factories dated 7th and 24th December, 1985 were not vacated, both the
orders were suspended. The Court gave temporary permission to run the plant and set ten
conditions to strictly follow, along with fines. The Court also mentioned that failure to
maintain the conditions would result in the cancellation of the permission granted by the
Court. 

Conditions to be followed
The strict conditions set by the Supreme Court for Shriram to restart the caustic chlorine
plant were as follows:

 The Court noted that only after filing the PIL, Shriram was forced to implement all
the recommendations given by the expert committees. Hence, the Court directed
an expert committee to monitor the safety measures and maintenance once a
fortnight twice and then submit a report before the Court. The Court directed
Shriram to pay Rs thirty thousand as the cost of various expenses of the expert
committee.

7|Page
  The Court directed Shriram to engage one plant operator to supervise the safety
and security measures of the plant. In case of any further future mishap, the
operator would be held responsible personally.
 The Chief Inspector of Factories or any other inspector under his direction was
supposed to pay a surprise visit without prior information once every week. The
duty of the inspector was to inspect whether the management of the plant was
following all the safety measures as directed by the expert committees.
 In addition to the above, the Court further asked the Central Board to engage
another senior officer to examine whether Shriram was properly following the
waste management rules.
 The Court directed the Chairman and Managing Director of Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd,
the company which was the owner of all the units of Shriram, to submit an
undertaking to the Court declaring that in future, they would be liable for further
accidents and should personally pay compensation to every victim.
 The two trade unions of Shriram, i.e., Lokahit Congress Union and Karamchari
Ekta Union, were asked to form a committee containing three representatives after
nomination from each of the unions to supervise the safety arrangements of the
plant and to inform the management in case of any negligence. The Court further
directed them to inform the Labour Commissioner if the management ignored such
defaults or wilful negligence. The Court also directed the management to train the
representatives regarding the functioning of the plant within two weeks.
 A detailed chart in both English and Hindi containing side effects of chlorine gas
in the human body and what to do in case of emergency leakage should be in
every department as well as at the gate of the premises.
 The employees in the caustic chlorine plant should be educated and properly
trained regarding the functioning of the plant and the steps to take during leakage.
The Court suggested using audio-visual programmes to educate, and after that, a
“refresher course” along with mock trials should be conducted at least once every
six weeks.
 The Court also directed the installation of loudspeakers on the factory premises to
warn local people in case of accidental leakages.
 A proper vigilance by management to ensure that the employees were also abiding
by the safety procedures and conducting regular medical checkups.

Payment of compensation

The Court directed Shriram to pay a sum of Rs20 lacs for the payment of compensation to
victims of oleum gas leakage. Besides that, a bank guarantee of Rs fifteen lacs should be
submitted to the Registrar as a security deposit to be used as funds for compensation claims
in case of any injury or death of any local people or employee due to chlorine gas leakage
within three years. In such a situation, the District Judge of Delhi would decide the amount of
compensation to be paid.

8|Page
Suggestions and directions of the Supreme Court to the Government of India

 The Court suggested the Government of India set up a “High Powered Authority”
after consulting with the Central Board to supervise the functioning of such
industries. The Court further requested to formulate a national policy regarding the
location of such industries in places where there are little or no health hazards to
the common public.
 Scientific and technical knowledge is required to determine the legal cases
regarding the environment. In the absence of any independent machinery, it
becomes difficult. Hence, the Court requested the Indian Government to set up a
piece of independent machinery called the “Ecological Sciences Research Group”
consisting of various science and technology experts to assist the Court in cases
relating to environmental issues.

Environmental court establishment

After this landmark case, the Supreme Court directed the government to set up environmental
courts regionally to deal with cases regarding various environmental issues such as pollution,
ecological destruction, and other conflicts with proper attention. The Environmental Court
should have one professional judge and two experts in science and technology from the
“Ecological Sciences Research Group” to assist the judge in adjudicating the case. 

However, either of the parties may appeal the decision of the Environmental Court to the
Supreme Court.

Future implications
The new legal principles and the reforms were reflected in the Visakhapatnam gas leak case
(2020) or Vizag gas leak case (2020). In this case, a hazardous gas called styrene leaked from
the factories of LG Polymers, causing the deaths of 12 people and injury to many more, as
well as damaging the environment. The company was held absolutely liable under the Act
and was required to deposit Rs 50 crores with the NGT.

Conclusion
Because of the public interest litigation, an industry, for the first time in Indian legal history,
was held absolutely liable for an accident and was required to pay a large sum as
compensation. The judgement was also able to reinstate the faith of the judiciary in common
people due to the reiteration of epistolary jurisdiction. The judgement is unique because the
Court did not declare a blanket ban on industrialisation since it would stop all scientific and
technological advancements. Rather, it took into account the need for industrialisation and
the fact that accidents are inevitable and accordingly emphasised the need for policies to
prevent accidents and subsequent liability in case of accidents.

9|Page
The case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986) has ever since emerged as a landmark case
not only in environmental activism but also in judicial activism. It still acts as a precedent
while deciding similar cases

10 | P a g e