Introduction

MC Mehta is known as the Green Avenger of India; He is an Indian public interest attorney and
environmentalist who won several landmark judgments single-handedly in numerous PILs which
were filed based on environmental issues. For his activities and concerns for the protection of the
environment, he also earns the title "green lawyer of India.".

The case MC Mehta v. Union of India of 1986, wherein the petitioner in the person was himself
MC Mehta, has emerged as a landmark judgment in environmental activism in India. There are
several reasons for this. The judgement, after the Bhopal Gas Disaster of 1984 that claimed
hundreds of lives, changed the scope, extent, and application of not only the environmental laws
in India but also that of Article 21 dealing with the right to life and personal liberty and Article
32 dealing with remedies for violations of fundamental rights of the Constitution of India. The
enumeration of judgments passed in this case by the Supreme Court of India besides underlying
legal issues and findings of the Court regarding several newly evolved legal principles from this
case.

Background of the case

Shriram, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd, had various plants located within one single
complex covering about 76 acres in a very densely populated area. The company had been
producing several chemicals in the form of caustic soda, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric
acid, alum, anhydrous sodium sulfate, high-test hypochlorite, and active earth and, in fact,
always produced products like bleaching powder, superphosphate, vanaspati and soap. The
studied chlor-alkali facility came into operation in 1949 and employed a staff of 263.

During the subsequent Bhopal Gas Tragedy in 1984, the Central Government identified a
company named 'Technica' for evaluating the facility of caustic chlorine provided by Shriram.
That company, later on, submitted an interim report suggesting probable causes for concern
along with some suggestions for improvement.

The possible dangers and risks emanating from a major leak of the caustic chlorine facility of
Shriram was discussed in Parliament in March 1985. A professional committee, the Manmohan
Singh Committee, was formed later for a proper analysis of the caustic chlorine plant. After
thorough research, the committee presented a report involving several proposals of safety and
pollution control measures.

The petitioner, MC Mehta, High Court of Karnataka, acting in person, filed the first Civil Writ
Petition 12739 of 1985 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for an order directing the
shutdown of several industrial establishments operated by Shriram Foods & Fertilisers
Industries, hereinafter referred to as 'Shriram' for convenience, as they were located in an over-
populated area of Delhi and, thereby posed risks to the residents around.

A misfortune in which, while the aforementioned petition was still pending, Oleum gas had
escaped from one of the factories run by Shriram had already taken place before compensation
claims were made both by the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association.

Shriram filed another Civil Writ Petition 26 of 1986 against the validity of multiple orders asking
to stop their production.

In the case mentioned above, the Supreme Court established several novel legal doctrines. These
landmark judgments were based on two Civil Writ Petitions, 12739 of 1985 and 26 of 1986,
respectively.

The initial verdict was delivered by a bench of three judges, one of whom was the former Chief
Justice of India, P.N. Bhagwati, who appeared on February 17, 1986, along with Justices D.P.
Madon and G.L. Oza, which went on to hear and determine the question of whether Shriram
Foods and Fertilisers' caustic chlorine plant should be allowed to be restarted. Application of
Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries was sought clarification. It was held that the application
prayed for variations of certain orders, and this was based upon an order for which the Supreme
Court made an additional order on 10 March 1986. The court eventually issued a conclusory
judgment addressed to constitutionally relevant questions by a five-judge bench, so called in the
Indian Constitution under Article 145(3) on December 20, 1986.

Facts of the Case

On December 4, 1985, one of the units of Shriram experienced a very serious leakage of oleum
gas. Such leakage had direct physical consequences for many members of the public at large,
such as employees and civilians in the vicinity. An advocate practicing in Tis Hazari Court also
died from health effects due to inhalation of oleum gas. The petitioner and the Delhi Bar
Association both testified to that incident. The second minor leakage of oleum gas occurred from
the joints of a pipeline after a gap of two days on 6th December. Being cognizant of the two
subsequent leaks of oleum gas, the Delhi government acted promptly by passing an order under
Section 133(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing Shriram to perform the
subsequent acts:

A. Quit the usage of lethal chemicals and toxic gases in the unit in two days.
B. All the abovementioned chemicals must be relocated to a safe place within a week and
not stored or kept at the same location where the incident occurred afterwards;

Otherwise, to appear before the District Magistrate Court in Delhi to explain why the order
referred above was not implemented on December 17, 1985. The aforesaid writ petitions were
filed for consideration in the Supreme Court, the very next day. Pointing out to the earlier
judgment/order passed by the District Magistrate, the Supreme Court observed that owing to the
aforesaid "lacunae", it is more than problematic to initiate the said steps with urgently.

Legal Issues Involved

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 (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

With the authority vested upon him by the Supreme Court, the petitioner-in-person constituted a
committee of experts known as the "Agarawal Committee," which went ahead to conduct an
audit of the toxic chlorine plant owned by Shriram. The Committee found several lapses in the
safety measures and came to the conclusion that the absolute elimination of risks was impossible
due to the siting of the plant in a very congested zone. It appears from the report that the
respondent petitioner, appearing in person before the Court, submitted that despite the effective
implementation of all recommendations given by the various committees of experts, the caustic
chlorine plant must be barred from being allowed to start its operations again for there is still a
significant danger posed to the residents of the areas surrounding the plant.
Arguments by the Respondents

The lawyer for Shriram pleaded before the Court to permit it to reopen the caustic chlorine unit
by citing that the management of Shriram had done everything possible and followed all safety
measures as well as had included the suggestions made by both the Manmohan Singh Committee
as well as the Nilay Choudhary Committee. Considering all the safeguards, the possibility of the
leakage of chlorine gas was improbable or negligible. Also, plant shutdown would result in the
loss of 4,000 jobs, while the Delhi Water Supply Undertaking would be deprived of chlorine
supplies and have a decrease in downstream products used in water purification. Most
importantly, it was charged that all the Shriram-owned facilities were shut down because of a
lack of maintenance and safety procedures.

The lawyer further filed a "preliminary objection" before the Court regarding the addressing of
issues of constitutional significance, as the leak occurred after the filing of the petition. He
submitted that the petitioner had the choice to move an amendment to the writ petition for
awarding damages. This aspect, the Court accepted but rejected his objection as, the applications
for compensation filed by the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association,
were made much earlier.

Judgement of the Court

The Supreme Court finally awarded Shriram permission to re-open the particular unit. Although
the above two orders issued by the Inspector and Assistant Commissioner of factories on
December 7th and December 24, 1985, were not cancelled, both the orders were stayed. The
Court granted the temporary permission for running the plant and imposed ten stringent
conditions that need to be complied with along with the imposition of fines. The Court further
stipulated that if they were not to meet up with the established conditions, authorization being
issued by the Court would be withdrawn.

Conditions to be followed

The criteria and requirements as determined by the Supreme Court in allowing Shriram to
operate the caustic chlorine facility once again were;
The Court observed that it was only after the filing of this PIL that Shriram was coerced into
implementing all the recommendations made by the expert committees. In these circumstances, it
is directed that an expert committee may 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.

The Court further ordered that Shriram should engage one plant operator to oversee the safety
and security of the plant. In case of further mishap in future, the operator would be liable
personally.

The Chief Inspector of Factories, or any assistant inspector acting on his behalf, was instructed to
make a surprise inspection at least once a week. The job of the inspector was basically to find out
whether the plant management observed all the safety measures recommended by the specialized
committees.

The Court further recommended that the Central Board appoint another high-ranking official to
check the extent to which Shriram was following the regulations regarding waste management.

The Court directed the Chairman and Managing Director of Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd, the company
owning all units of Shriram, to file an undertaking before the Court stating that they would
personally be liable for any future accidents and each of them should pay compensation directly
to each victim.

The Lokahit Congress Union and Karamchari Ekta Union-the two unions which are affiliated
with Shriram-were advised to constitute a committee of three members, after nominations by
each of the unions-to oversee the safety protocols of the plant and to report the management in
case of lapse. The Court also directed them to report before the Labour Commissioner if the
management disregarded these issues or even showed wilful negligence. The court further
ordered management to train the representatives on the procedures of running the plant within
two weeks of notice.

A detailed chart, in both English and Hindi, listing adverse effects of chlorine gas on the human
body, along with precautionary steps to be adopted in case of leakage, should be put up at each
department and at the entrance also.
Employees working in the caustic chlorine plant should be made aware and instructed about the
working of the plant and the procedure they should follow in case of a leakage. In this respect,
the Court recommended the use of audio-visual programmes for education and, subsequently, a
"refresher course" in the company's office accompanied by mock trials at least once every six
weeks.

The court also directed for installing loudspeakers inside the factory premises that will trigger in
case there is an unintended leakage.

Proper management control will ensure employees' conduct on the job is observed with respect
to work-place safety principles during routine medical checks.

Payment of compensation

The Court directed Shriram to pay a sum of Rs twenty 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

Suggestions and Directives of the Supreme Court to the Government of India

It directed the Government of India to evolve in consultation with the Central Board, a "High
Powered Authority" to oversee the working of such industries. The Court further requested to
evolve 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 law cases relating to the
environment. Without any independent machinery, it becomes hard to decide. Hence the Court
requested the Indian Government to form a piece of independent machinery called "Ecological
Sciences Research Group" consisting of various science and technology experts to assist the
Court in cases relating to environmental issues.