M.C. Mehta & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. - Oleum gas leak case (1986)

Judges Bench: P.N. Bhagwati (CJ), G.L. Oza, M.M. Dutt, K.N. Singh, JJ. - Citation: 1987 AIR 965, 1986 SCR (1) 312
Date Of Judgement: December 20, 1986

Held:
This is the landmark judgment as for the first time in Indian history a company (Shriram Food And Fertilizers Ltd.) was held liable for its actions and was asked to pay compensations. It was held by the Supreme Court of India that a complete ban on such industries will impact the growth and development of the country and the closure of such industries would bring unemployment to 4000+ workers.

The Supreme Court in its decision made it clear that closing of such industries will create a hindrance in the development of the country, certain conditions were drafted for the safety of people and the environment so that there would be no hindrance in the development of nation and there would be no hazardous disaster like Oleum gas leakage. In this particular case, the Supreme Court focused on social, legal, and economic factors of the society; i.e. defended the environment as well as rights of the public.

Introduction:
This case commenced in the aftermath of the oleum gas leakage from Shriram Foods and Fertilizers, reminded everyone of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. Bhopal gas tragedy, the disaster was a result of a leak of methyl isocyanate (MIC) which occurred in the month of December in a pesticides manufacturing plant named Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL).[1]

This case was a result of a writ petition filed by a prominent lawyer M.C Mehta against Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries because it was located in one of the foremost populous areas of the town and therefore the emissions coming from it are hazardous for the overall population. The most controversy raised during this case was that the firms should be closed or removed and relocated from the place because they are often dangerous to the people residing nearby.

This particular issue was stated ahead 3 judges bench, who ultimately allowed Shriram industries to operate in the vicinity of Kirti Nagar, Delhi and subjected to certain rules and guidelines which were laid down and this was the sole easy question ahead of the court to be decided until the main concern had risen and altered the course of action.

While this writ petition was pending within the court of law, there occurred a leak within the Shriram industrial units on 4th and 6th December 1985, there was an escape of oleum gas which also led to the death of a few.

The oleum gas leak case is one of the landmark judgments of the Indian judiciary and also a conspicuous case in the field of environmental field and for the first time in Indian history a company (Shriram Food And Fertilizers Ltd.) was held liable for its actions and was asked to pay compensations.

This accident happened soon after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and created a havoc situation in Delhi and developed a sense of fear in the resident. In this very case, one person died, several people were hospitalized. The Supreme Court propounded the principle of Absolute liability in this case; it turned out to be one of the landmark cases of Indian history. This oleum gas leak case was focused on environmental issues and its tormented laws.

These laws needed implementation as well as amendments. In this particular case, the Supreme Court focused on social, legal, and economic factors of the society; i.e. defended the environment as well as rights of the public. The Ryland v. Fletcher rule was applied in this case. J. Bhagwati stated that the above rule has been 100 years old and is not enough to decide cases such as these, as science has improved a lot in these years, which is why the Supreme Court went a little further and implemented the absolute liability rule.[2]

Brief Statements Of Facts:

• 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.[3]
   
• 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 � Seturam 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.

Issues Involved:

• Do such hazardous industries allowed to operate in such areas?
• Would any regulating mechanism be evolved if such kinds of industries have to run in the area?
• How to determine the liability and amount of compensation in such a scenario?
• How Article 32 of the Indian Constitution does extend in these cases?
• Whether the rule of Absolute Liability or Rayland v. Fletcher is to be followed?
• Whether 'Shriram' could be considered to be a 'State' within the ambit of Article 12?

Law On The Point:

• Article 12. Definition:

  In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.[4]
   

• Article 21. Protection of life and personal liberty:

  No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.[5]
   

• Article 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part:

  1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
      
  2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
      
  3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
      
  4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution."[6]
      

• Section 133(1) CrPC. Conditional order for removal of nuisance:

  1. Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub- divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this of behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit. [7]
      

• Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974:

  The act was commenced in 1974 and is applicable to the states of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Assam, Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Bihar Tripura, West Bengal, Kerala, and the union territories. This act could be adopted by any state through a resolution passed declaring to adopt the Act. The Water (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 was commenced to stop and control pollution and to revive and maintain the wholesomeness of water for the establishment. The Act also gave some powers to the central board and the state board to regulate pollution of the water bodies.
   

• Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981:

  This act was established shortly after the commencement of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It desired to provide stringent legislation for the dominant environmental facet in India. This act aimed to provide provisions to decrease and control pollution within the country and sets up Boards within the central government and the state to hold out the required steps to realize this aim. The Boards are given the facility to line up regulations to make sure that pollution is controlled within the country. The legislation allows the Boards power to take reasonable actions on the individuals that fail to satisfy the air quality standards.

Ruling:
Justice P.N Bhagwati stated that seeking closure of such hazardous industries is not a solution as it will do no good to the society as well as the nation. It will impact the growth and development of the country and the closure of such industries would bring unemployment to thousands of workers. Closure of Shriram individually would bring unemployment to 4000+ workers. Though these industries are disastrous to the public, complete closure of such industries is next to impossible.

Justice P.N Bhagwati stated that seeking closure of such hazardous industries is not a solution as it will do no good to the society as well as the nation. It will impact the growth and development of the country and the closure of such industries would bring unemployment to thousands of workers. Closure of Shriram individually would bring unemployment to 4000+ workers. Though these industries are disastrous to the public, complete closure of such industries is next to impossible.

So to minimize the risk factor, 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. Several provisions were enacted by the government which allowed the company to operate under 11 conditions as suggested by the committee.

Important provisions:
In accordance with the Water Act (Prevention and Control of Pollution) of 1974 and the Air Act (Prevention and Control of Pollution) of 1981, the Central Pollution Control Board shall establish an inspector to verify the level of pollutants, establishing an employee's safety board, industry to publicly disclose the effects and proper chlorine treatment, train and educate workers in terms of plant safety through audio-visual facilities and install loudspeakers in case of gas leakage to alert neighbors, equipment such as helmets and belts should be used by workers and Shriram's employees shall provide the Chairman of Delhi Cloth Mills Limited with the undertaking that the employees will be responsible for the liability paid for any accident or damage resulting in death or injury to workers or individuals living nearby in connection with the gas escape.[8]

It was held by the court that all the exceptions set out to the rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher cannot be applicable to hazardous industries and therefore adopted the principle of absolute or no-fault liability. The only exception which was available was either a natural calamity or an act by a third party but since in this case, the act was due to human accompanied by mechanical errors, the principle of absolute liability prevailed.[9]

Ratio:
This particular case propounded the principle of absolute liability and also highlighted the concept of deep pocket in law. Here, article 21 of the Indian Constitution is interpreted as a right to a dignified life- with healthy environment clean air and surroundings.

Comment:
A writ petition was filed by M.C. Mehta before the Supreme Court of India for the closure or removal and relocation of Shriram Food and Fertilizers Limited as it was involved in the production of hazardous chemicals which were hazardous for the people living in the particular vicinity. This particular issue was stated ahead 3 judges bench, who ultimately allowed Shriram industries to operate in the vicinity of Kirti Nagar, Delhi and subjected to certain rules and guidelines which were laid down in the Manmohan Singh Committee.

While the petition was still pending, there was an escape of oleum gas from a unit of Shriram industries. After the incident, an application was filed by the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board along with the Delhi Bar Association for claiming compensation for the people who had suffered damages on account of the gas leakage from the plant. Now the application was transferred 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.

A point of argument was raised by the respondent that the leakage happened after the petition was already filed and there were no amendments made by the petitioners for claiming compensations so issues regarding constitutional importance and compensation should not be entertained. Here the court was unable to identify whether "state" comes under the ambit of Article 12 or not and stressed to do it in the near future.

The Supreme Court had to make a decision that what is the measure of liability of an industry which was engaged in a hazardous activity, what if a person gets injured or dies because of such accident. Is there any other principle on which the liability might be determined or the court shall apply the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher?

"The rule in Raylands v. Fletcher[10] evolved in the 19th century at a time when all these developments of science and technology had not taken place cannot afford any guidance in evolving any standard of liability consistent with the constitutional norms and the needs of the present day economy and social structure.

In a modern industrial society with highly developed scientific knowledge and technology where hazardous or inherently dangerous industries are necessary to carry on as part of developmental programme, the Court need not feel inhibited by this rule merely because the new law does not recognize the rule of strict and absolute liability in case of an enterprise engaged in hazardous and dangerous activity."[11]

The court also ensured that when the principle of absolute liability is applied, "the death toll would not be applicable to the determination of liability" and in any kind of damages occurred due to such accident, all the costs of hospital from disease to death must be borne by the respective industry itself.[12]

In the field of environmental law, this judgment secures an important place in our country. The rules propounded and diverse interpretation of fundamental rights, conditions took up the judgment to touch upon various aspects of the society, and the rule which was laid down in this case is still very useful and being utilized by the court of law. In this particular case, the Supreme Court focused on social, legal, and economic factors of the society; i.e. defended the environment as well as rights of the public.

There was a much need of such kind of rules and amendments were necessary in the previously existing rules as they were not up to the mark and unable to secure the rights of the individuals and provide justice. Industries are the asset of a nation and demanding the closure of hazardous industries on the grounds of safety and health measure is inappropriate.

The Supreme Court took a very rational decision and made it clear that closing of such industries will create a hindrance in the development of the country, certain conditions were drafted for the safety of people and the environment so that there would be no hindrance in the development of nation and there would be no hazardous disaster like Oleum gas leakage.

Conclusion:
This is the landmark judgment as for the first time in Indian history a company (Shriram Food And Fertilizers Ltd.) was held liable for its actions and was asked to pay compensations. This incident took right before the implementation of Environment Protection Act 1986 and become precedent for the implementation of such laws.

The Supreme Court in its decision made it clear that closing of such industries will create a hindrance in the development of the country, certain conditions were drafted for the safety of people and the environment so that there would be no hindrance in the development of nation and there would be no hazardous disaster like Oleum gas leakage.

In this particular case, the Supreme Court focused on social, legal, and economic factors of the society; i.e. defended the environment as well as rights of the public. Every individual possesses a right to live in a safe and healthy environment and it's our responsibility to maintain such healthy and secure environment for upgrading the society.

End-Notes:

1. Dixit, P. (2020, November 26). MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986) Case Analysis (Oleum gas leak case). Retrieved from https://lawcirca.com/mc-mehta-and-union-of-india-1986-case-analysis-oleum-gas-leak-case/
2. Sehgal, D.R. (2020, October 18). Oleum gas leak case - a case study. Retrieved from https://blog.ipleaders.in/oleum-gas-leak-case-case-study/
    
3. Sehgal, D.R. (2020, October 18). Oleum gas leak case - a case study. Retrieved from https://blog.ipleaders.in/oleum-gas-leak-case-case-study/
4. The Constitution of India, 1950, art.12.
5. The Constitution of India, 1950, art.21.
6. The Constitution of India, art.32.
7. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), sec.133.cl.1
8. Chhattani, D. (2021, April 1). Shriram Food and Fertilisers Gas Leak Case. Retrieved from https://lawtimesjournal.in/shriram-food-and-fertilisers-gas-leak-case/
9. Malepati, H. (2020, December 2). Oleum Gas Leak Case  MC Mehta v. Union of India. Retrieved from https://www.lawcolumn.in/oleum-gas-leak-case-mc-mehta-v-union-of-india/
10. Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330
11. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 965
12. Malepati, H. (2020, December 2). Oleum Gas Leak Case  MC Mehta v. Union of India. Retrieved from https://www.lawcolumn.in/oleum-gas-leak-case-mc-mehta-v-union-of-india/

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Navya Singh

Authentication No: NV232709210548-23-1122

1. 
   
2.