Final draft

Topic: MC Mehta V Union of India

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
Prof. Aviral Thakre ANJALI KUMARI
Assistant Professor Roll no: 92001040021
Faculty of Law, Marwadi University Stream: B.A.LLB Semester: IV
 DECLARATION

I Anjali Kumari certify that the work embodied in this project work, entitled “MC Mehta V Union
of India” is me on bona – fide work University. The matter embodied in this project has not been
submitted for the award of any other degree. I declare that I have faithfully acknowledged, given
credit to and referred to the authors /research workers whenever their works have been cited in the
text and the body of the project. I further certify that I have not willfully lifted up some other work,
para, text, results, etc. reported in the journals, books, magazines, etc., or available at the websites
and included them in this project and cited as my own work.

SIGNATURE OF STUDENT
DATE:
PLACE:
 SUPERVISIOR’S CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the work embodied in the accompanying project entitled “MC Mehta V
Union of India” has been carried out entirely by Anjali Kumari under my direct supervision and
guidance and the candidate has fulfilled the requirements of the regulations laid down for the
partial fulfillment of BA.LLB. (Hons.) degree examination in the course of Environment Law
(semester – 4), Faculty of Law, Marwadi University.

Prof. AVIRAL Thakre

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR FACULTY OF LAW

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who have helped me the most throughout my
project, be it directly or indirectly. I am most graduated to my teacher Prof. Aviral Thakre who
actually inspired me to do this project by providing this opportunity. A special thanks to my
classmate who helped me out in completing this project, where they all exchanged their own ideas
and made me realize both the perspectives to the issue and thus made it possible to complete my
project with all accurate information
 Introduction

The case of MC Mehta vs Union of India on the Oleum Gas Leak revolves around one of the most
devastating industrial disasters in India's history. On December 4, 1985, a massive leakage of
oleum gas occurred at the Shriram Food and Fertilizer factory in Delhi, resulting in severe
casualties and environmental damage. This case analysis will delve into the legal proceedings,
implications, and outcomes of this landmark case.

Facts of the Case:

A writ petition was filed by a prominent attorney M.C. Mehta before the Supreme Court of India
for the closure or removal and relocation of Shriram Food and Fertilizers Limited, which was
established in the densely populated area of Kirti Nagar in Delhi with a population of around
200,000 residents, was involved in the production of hazardous chemicals like caustic soda,
chlorine, oleum, and some other chemicals and fertilizers, the production of such harmful chemical
lead to the emission of toxic gases which was hazardous for the people residing in the particular
vicinity.

The industry which was in the question was Shriram Food and Fertilizers Ltd which was a Caustic
Chlorine plant operated by Delhi Cloth Mill Ltd constituted in 1949.

While the petition was still pending in the court of law, oleum gas leaked on the 4th and 6th of
December, 1985 from one of the units of the plant and resulted in the death of an advocate of Tis
Hazari Court and also caused harm to the resident of the vicinity because of the inhalation of the
leaked gas. After this incident, the Delhi Legal Aid & Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association
applied an application for claiming compensation for the victims who had suffered damages.

A Bench of three Hon'ble Judges who allowed functioning of Shriram Food and Fertilizers and its
other plant under some guidelines, invoke the applications for compensation to a Bench of five
Judges as the issue was related to great constitutional importance relating to the interpretation of
Article 21 as well as Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. In order to assess whether a writ in
conjunction with compensation could be awarded, the court had to interpret Article 32. In relation
to the private companies Article 21, which establishes the right to protect life and freedom, was
also to be interpreted as being essential in the public interest.

Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, a second writ petition was filed by the petitioner; it
provides the writ against the State in the situation of breach of fundamental rights and to claim
proper compensation. The court gave directions to two expert teams one was appointed by the
court Nilay Chaudhary Committee and the other was appointed by the petitioner Agarwal
Committee to check that whether the recommendations which were given in the Manmohan Singh
Committee, formulated when the first petition was pending seeking the closure to Shriram, has
implemented in conformity to control the pollution and safety measure. A third committee Sitaram
Committee was also set up by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi to make its own recommendations
and to conduct on the spot inspections.

The Delhi administration worked instantly after the subsequent leakage of oleum gas twice within
two days and in accordance with section 133(1) of CrPC, the Delhi Magistrate issued an order to
Shriram Food and Fertilizers to discontinue the production and processing of hazardous chemicals
and gases like chlorine, oleum, etc. in the plant situated in Delhi and also remove all the poisonous
chemicals and gases from the plant within seven days and was also refrained from storing these
chemicals again in the plant or if they challenge this decision then they have to appear in front of
the District Magistrate on 17 December 1985 to give their arguments as to why this order should
not be enforced.

Issue Raised in MC Mehta Vs Union of India Case

1. Whether this Hon’ble Court has the scope and ambit of jurisdiction to hear the present
matter?
2. Whether Shriram owned by Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd Public Co, a public company limited by
shares, comes within the meaning of State under Article 12?
3. Whether Shriram should be allowed to restart its operation of manufacturing caustic
chlorine and oleum which is engaged in an industry vital to the public interest is potentially
a health hazard and whether it would be a violation of Article 21?
4. Whether compensation would be provided to the victims of the oleum gas leak tragedy if
so then what would be the measurement of liability of an enterprise that is engaged in the
 manufacturing of a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry that poses a potential risk
to the health of the community at large?
5. Whether such large enterprises should be allowed to continue to function in thickly
populated areas and if they are permitted so to function, what measures or regulatory
mechanisms must be taken to reduce to a minimum the hazard to the workmen and the
community living in the neighborhood? If people die or are injured as a result of an accident
in this industry. Does the ruling in Rylands v. Fletcher necessarily apply, or is there another
principle that can be used to evaluate liability?

Arguments From Either Side

The Hon’ble court follows a system of adversary where the court allows both parties to defend and
submit their statements and evidence. After hearing from both sides, the court can able to take a
just and right decision. So, let us look into those arguments from either side for the aforementioned
issues. Let’s see how the petitioner proves the wrong committed by the defendant and how the
defendant is defending themself by his set of evidence and interpretation of laws.

Petitioner

Whether this Hon’ble Court has the scope and ambit of jurisdiction to hear the present matter. It
was argued for the issue of “whether the court has jurisdiction to adjudge upon”, in Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India, the court held that Article 32 of the constitution of India not only gives
this court the authority to issue directives, orders, or writs to enforce fundamental rights but also
places a constitutional obligation on the court to protect those rights. To that end, this court has all
incidental and ancillary powers, including the ability to create new remedies and implement
different methods to uphold fundamental rights. In circumstances where it is appropriate, the court
may also have the authority to award compensation. The violation of a fundamental right must be
wide and have an impact on the fundamental rights of many individuals. The present applications
for compensation are therefore maintainable under Article 32.

The Supreme Court was asked to decide in Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal whether the
Rajasthan Electricity Board was an “authority” as defined by the term “other authorities” in Article
12. The judge who delivered the judgment, Justice Bhargava J., emphasized that all statutory and
constitutional authorities to whom legal authority has been granted would fall under the definition
of “other authorities” in Article 12. And it would be an indication that the authority in question is
the “State” if any group of people has the power to issue directions, the disobedience of which
would be penalized as a criminal offense.

The petitioner contended that Shriram Industry should be ordered to close permanently because
doing so would violate the fundamental right protected by Article 21 and put the lives and health
of the community living nearby at risk. Despite not being mentioned in the Constitution directly,
the right to a healthy environment and clean environment is implicit in the right to life. The
directive principles outlined in the Constitution address how the State should act to raise the bar
for living a healthy lifestyle and improving healthcare.

It was asserted that the type of activity carried out by the mentioned industry was hazardous and
may be damaging to the general public’s health. To ensure that no harm is done to the community
as a result of the risky activity they have engaged in and to hold them accountable for it, it was
said that the corporation should have an absolute and non-delegable liability.

The petitioner also contended that since all petitions for compensation cited the right to life as their
legal justification, which also ensures the right to health and a healthy environment, compensation
should be given to all victims. The Shriram Industry has a legal obligation to take precautions to
avoid harming the community or posing any health risks.

It was also argued that the conclusion among all expert committees, constituted by the orders of
the court for an investigation into the present case and suggesting recommendations thereon, is
that the element of risk to workers and the general public can be reduced by the use of adequate
and efficient safety measures, but the risk cannot be entirely removed. The caustic chlorine plant’s
relocation is the only long-term solution, according to the common opinion of the Expert
Committees, if the risk to the community is to be eliminated.

Respondent

Whether Shriram owned by Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd Public Co, a public company limited by shares,
comes within the meaning of State under Article 12 The counsel for Shriram argued against
broadening the scope of Article 12 to include private enterprises. The argument was that because
Shrirarn was operating the industry in line with the Government’s specified industrial policy and
ultimately intended to operate that industry on its own, Shriram was allowed to do so while
operating under the direct supervision and regulation of the Government. The control of the
Government was linked to controlling that aspect of the industry’s functioning that could have a
significant impact on the public interest because the Government intended to eventually continue
this industry.

Furthermore, according to the counsel, the State’s control or regulation of a private corporation’s
operations under broad statutes like the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act 1951 only
represents the State’s use of its police power to regulate. The activity of the private corporation is
not changed by this legislation to become state activity. The State’s police power merely governs
how the activity is to be conducted; the activity itself remains the responsibility of the private
enterprise.

The counsel further argued that the rule of strict liability, which was laid down in the case of
Rylands vs. Fletcher, must be applied in the present case.

Judgment in MC Mehta Vs Union of India Case

The Supreme Court issued a brave ruling saying that it was not a must to adhere to the English law
rule from the 19th century and may instead develop a rule appropriate to the social and economic
circumstances prevalent in India at the time. It replaced the strict liability rule established in
Rylands v. Fletcher with the rule of “Absolute Liability” as part of Indian law. It explicitly stated
that none of the exceptions under the Rylands v. Fletcher rule applied to the new rule.

While delivering judgment in MC Mehta vs Union of India, Bhagwati, then Chief Justice of India,
stated that:

“All these advances in science and technology had not yet occurred when this rule (Rylands v.
Fletcher) was developed in the 19th century. It cannot afford any guidance in evolving any standard
of liability consistent with the constitutional norms and needs of the present-day economy and
social structure. To meet the demands of a society that is changing quickly and to keep up with the
nation’s economic progress, the law must change. To effectively address the new issues that emerge
in a highly industrialized economy, we must establish new principles and standards. We cannot
allow the law as it is practiced in England, or for that matter in any other foreign country, to be the
foundation of our judicial reasoning.
We are no longer dependent on a foreign legal system’s provisions. We are undoubtedly ready to
accept illumination from whichever direction it comes, but we must first develop our own legal
system. We, in India, cannot hold our hands back and I venture to evolve a new principle of liability
that English courts have not done. We have to develop our law and if we find that it is necessary
to construct a new principle of liability to deal with an unusual situation that has arisen and which
is likely to arise in the future on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous industries which
are concomitant to an industrial economy, there is no reason why we should be cautious about
developing such a liability rule, simply because it hasn’t been done in England.

The enterprise must be deemed to have a duty to ensure that the hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity in which it engages is conducted with the highest standards of safety. If any harm arises as
a result of this activity, the business must be held absolutely liable to pay for that harm, and it
should not be considered an acceptable defense for the business to claim that it exercised all
reasonable caution and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part. We would
therefore hold that an enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are
harmed by an accident in the course of performing a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
that results in the escape of toxic gas. This liability is not subject to any of the exceptions that
apply to the tortious principle.”

The principles of absolute liability as laid down in MC Mehta vs Union of India are the following:

Firstly, only those enterprises will be liable which are engaged in a hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity (i.e. those not falling under the category of such enterprises will be outside the
ambit of the rule where the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher, will be still applicable).

Secondly, the escape from a dangerous thing from one’s land to another is not necessary (i.e., the
rule will not only be applied to those injured persons who are outside the premises but also to those
who are inside).

Thirdly, the rule is without any exception; and

Fourthly, the quantum of damages depends upon the magnitude and the financial capability of the
defendant’s enterprise.
After establishing the principle of absolute liability, the court instructed the petitioning
organizations to file lawsuits in the proper court within two months on behalf of the gas leak
victims. Further, the management was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs by way of security
for the payment of compensation claims of the victims of the Oleum gas leakage with the registrar
of the court. In addition to it, a Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs was also directed to be
deposited which shall be encashed in case of any escape of gas within three years from the date of
the judgment.

Additionally, it was stated that the caustic soda factory’s permanent shutdown would put 4,000
workers out of jobs and worsen the social poverty issue. As a result, the court issued a temporary
operating order for the factory with 11 conditions and created an expert committee to supervise
industry operations. The government’s primary guidelines were as follows:

1. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act of 1981 both require that certain emission levels be monitored by an inspector
appointed by the Central Pollution Control Board.

2. To establish an employee safety committee.

3. The industry should educate the public about chlorine’s effects and appropriate handling.

4. Installing loudspeakers to alert neighbors in case of a gas leak and providing audio-visual
services for employee training and instruction on plant safety.

5. Staff should use safety gear including belts and helmets.

6. If a gas escape results in the death or injury of workers or nearby residents, it is requested that
the employees of Shriram provide the Chairman of Delhi Cloth Mills Limited with an assurance
that they will be “personally accountable” for paying compensation.

Reasoning

In the case of MC Mehta vs Union of India regarding the Oleum gas leak, the legal analysis
primarily revolves around issues of environmental law, public safety, and corporate liability. The
Oleum gas leak, which occurred at the Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries plant in Delhi,
resulted in severe harm to the environment and posed significant risks to public health.
One of the key legal principles at play in this case is the "polluter pays" principle, which holds that
those who pollute the environment should bear the costs of cleaning up the pollution and
compensating those affected. This principle is often enshrined in environmental legislation and is
a fundamental aspect of environmental justice.

Furthermore, the case likely involved an analysis of regulatory compliance by the Shriram Foods
and Fertilizers Industries plant. This would entail examining whether the plant had followed all
necessary regulations and precautions to prevent such a disaster from occurring. If the plant was
found to have been negligent or in violation of environmental regulations, it could be held liable
for damages resulting from the gas leak.

Additionally, the case may have involved a determination of government responsibility and
oversight. The Union of India could be held accountable for any lapses in regulatory enforcement
or failure to adequately monitor and regulate industrial activities to prevent such incidents.

In analyzing the case, the court would have considered evidence regarding the extent of the damage
caused by the gas leak, the measures taken by the plant to prevent or mitigate the leak, and the
response of government authorities to the incident. Expert testimony from environmental
scientists, public health experts, and industry professionals may have been crucial in assessing
liability and determining appropriate remedies.

Ultimately, the court's decision in MC Mehta vs Union of India on the Oleum gas leak would likely
have emphasized the importance of strict adherence to environmental regulations, the need for
effective enforcement mechanisms, and the principle of holding polluters accountable for their
actions. It may have resulted in orders for compensation to affected individuals and communities,
as well as directives for improving safety standards and regulatory oversight to prevent similar
incidents in the future.
Conclusion

The case’s judgment turned out to be vital for future environmental law challenges because it
resulted in many significant opinions that are still lauded today. By interpreting the right to life
under Article 21 broadly, the Supreme Court took a proactive approach to the case’s resolution and
ensured that the people’s fundamental rights were not violated.

The period in which they sat to hear the case prompted the court to allay the worries expressed
following the judgment on the Bhopal Gas tragedy, which was delivered only a year ago, to restore
the nation’s faith in the legal system. A strong ruling was deemed important and necessary to assure
the public that industries will be held completely responsible for their deeds. That’s where the
judgment arrived.

The decision has taken into account the relevance of industrialization as well as the possibility that
accidents may develop as a result of it. The choice was made while also taking into account the
necessity for industrialization, as well as the likelihood and consequences of injuries. The Supreme
Court became a champion of the environment and public rights as a result of its generally good
judgment, which took into account all relevant social, economic, and legal factors.