M.C.

Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 December, 1986

Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819

Bench: Bhagwati, P.N. (Cj)

History
It was again a disastrous time for India when in 1984 our late prime minister Ms. Indira Gandhi was
assassinated, we faced Sikh riots after the disastrous incident of assassination and in the same year we
faced Bhopal leak gas in December and just after one year of this incident in the same month of
December oleum gas leak incident happened in Delhi.
Oleum gas was leaked from Shri Ram Food & Fertilizers Ltd. Complex at Delhi. After a huge
incident of Bhopal Gas leak tragedy not any state was ready to bear any incident similar to that but it
was happed in Delhi again and later that the District Magistrate Delhi ordered Shri Ram to stop
manufacturing and to move out of Delhi. While planning to move out of Delhi again the same
incident happened in same manner but this time a social activist and a proficient person stood against
the negligent and hazardous attempt of manufacturing unit comprised by the Industry, named M.C.
Mehta. He filed a Public Interest Litigation against the Shri Ram Industries for compensation and
demanded that closed establishment should not restart not only Delhi but also in India as well.
Summary of PIL
A judicial writ petition was filed by M.C Mehta, a social activist professional person, he sought-after
closure for Shriram Industries because it was engaged in producing of hazardous substances and
situated in an exceedingly densely urban area of Kirti Nagar. While the petition was unfinished, on
four and six Dec of 1985, there was leak of oleum gas from one in all its units that caused the death of
an advocate and affected the health of many others. The incident happened on Dec 4, 1985. simply
when one year from the Bhopal gas disaster a huge number of persons – each amongst the workmen
and public were affected. This incident additionally reminded of the Bhopal gas holocaust. M.C
Mehta filed a PIL underneath Articles twenty-one (21) and thirty-two (32) of the Constitution and
sought closure and relocation of the Shriram Caustic chlorine and sulfuric acid Plant that was situated
in an exceedingly thickly urban area of city. Factories were closed down without any delay as
Inspector of Factories and Commissioner (Factories) issued separate orders dated 8 and 24, 1985. This
incident happened only few months before Environment (Protection) Act came into force, therefore
became an inspiration for having an efficient law like this. There are six orders within the Shriram
Food and fertiliser trade case of the Supreme Court of India, out of those six, four orders were
pronounced before Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was passed and the date in which it came into
force. Therefore, the reported orders allowed to measure relevant and necessary as they place a new
reflection on however extremely hazardous and unsafe substances trade ought to be dealt with and
contained and controlled to reduce hazards to the employees and general public.
 Issues: -
 Whether such hazardous industries to be allowed to operate in such areas and determination
of liability and amount of compensation.
 Whether any regulating mechanism be evolved, if they are allowed to work in such area.
 Whether Article 21 is available against Shri Ram Industries which is engaged in industry
vital to public health and with potential to affect life of people.
 Whether the industry lies under Article 12 of Constitution of India and if it is what is the
measure of liability under this Article.
Judgment of the Honourable Court: -
 Justice Bhagwati showed his deep concern for the protection of the individuals of the city from the
leak of hazardous substances just like the one here – oleum gas. He gave his opinion that we cannot
adopt the policy to try and go away with chemical or venturous industries as they additionally
facilitate to boost the standard of life, as in this case this works because this industry was actively
supplying chlorine to the city water system installation which was supply chain of drintiking water to
the city and still kept up the quality of drinkable water. Therefore, industries even if venturous ought
to be came upon since they are essential for economic development and advancement of well-being of
the individuals.
"We can solely hope to reduce the part of hazard or risk to the community by taking all necessary
steps for locating such industries in an exceedingly matter which might cause least risk of danger to
the community and increasing safety requirements in such industries ". Therefore, the Supreme Court
was of the opinion that total ban on the on top of trade of service can impede the organic process
activities. it absolutely was additionally determined that permanent closure of the works would end in
the state of 4000 employees, sodium hydroxide works and boost social downside of financial
condition.
Therefore, the court suggested a national policy will have to be evolved by the government for the
location of toxic or hazardous industries and a decision will have to be taken in regard of relocation of
such industries with a view to eliminate risk to the community.
Few guidelines constituted by the government regarding safe industrial work-:
 The Central Pollution Control Board to appoint an inspector to examine and see that
pollution standards set underneath the Water Act and Air Act to be followed.
 To represent Worker's Safety Committee and industry to publicise the consequences of
chemical element and its applicable treatment.
 Instruct and train its employees in plant safety through audio visual programme, install
speaker to alert nearby situated localities in the event of leak of gas.
 Employees to use safety devices like masks and belts.
 And which the employees of Shriram to furnish undertaking from Chairman of DCM
restricted, that just in case of escape of gas leading to death or injury to workmen or
individuals living in locality they'll be "personally accountable " for payment of
compensation of such death or injury.
 The Court additionally directed that Shriram industries would deposit Rs 20,00,000 and to
furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 15,00,000 for payment of compensation claims of the victims
of oleum gas.
 If there was any escape of chemical element gas at intervals 3 years from the date of order
leading to death or injury to any workmen or living public within the locality. The quantum of
compensation was discoverable by the District Judge, Delhi. It additionally shows that the
court created the trade "absolutely liable " and compensation to be paid as once the injury
was tried while not requiring the trade to be gift within the case.
The above-mentioned conditions were developed to confirm continuous compliance with the
protection standards and procedures arranged by the committees (Manmohan Singh Committee and
Nilay Choudhary Committee) in order that the chance of hazard or risk to workmen may well be
reduced to nil. This all indicates that Supreme Court in its judgement stressed that bound customary
qualities to be arranged down by the govt. and more it ought to additionally create law on the
management and handling of venturous substances as well as the procedure to line up and to run trade
with smallest risk to humans , animals etc. more the industries cannot absolve itself of the
responsibility by showing either that that they weren't negligent in coping with the venturous
substance or including the procedure to set up and to run industry with minimal risk to humans ,
animals etc. Further the industries cannot absolve itself of the responsibility by showing either that
that they were not negligent in dealing with the hazardous substance or they took all the necessary and
reasonable precautions while dealing with it. Thus, the court applied the principle of no – fault
liability in this case.
Difference between oleum gas leak case judgment and judgments afterwards: -
As the cases stated in this case were Sukhdev v. Bhagwat Ram 1975, Ramanna Shetty v. International
Airport Authority 1979, Som Prakash v. Union of India 1981 none of the above cases had given any
proper guidelines of inspection and regulatory mechanism and in the very case it was held that
industries can not hide behind in stepping down from the responsibility of negligent in dealing with
the hazardous substance declaring themselves that they have used all reasonable precaustions.

Conclusionary Remarks
There wasn’t any compensation mechanism for any incident similar to that event in past so this was
made landmark because there was also a reason of establishment of compensation and regulating
mechanism and Supreme Court ordered in the same manner as well. After this landmark case it was
laid down that the enterprise must absorb the cost of accident and the larger and prosperous the
industry is, greater the amount of compensation. It was also the covering point in the favor of
industries if they prove incident that has happened its because if Act of God and the incident caused
by an outsider or stranger who was not the employee of the that particular industry then the company
or industry will not be liable for any hazardous leak incident.
REFERENCE
1. https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/case-analysis-m-c-mehta-v-union-of-india-shriram-
industries-case-by-roopali-lamba
2. . https://www.informea.org/en/court-decision/mc-mehta-v-union-india-and-ors-0
3. . https://www.legitquest.com/case/mc-mehta-v-union-of-india-others/7fb06
4. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l273-Public-Interest-Litigation.html 5.
Main.sci.gov.in/pilguidlines
5. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/426032/
6. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1281050/
7. Som Prakash v. Union of India, [1981] 1 S.C.C. 449