M C MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA (OLEUM LEAK CASE)
The Supreme Court in M C Mehta Vs Union of India (1987) 1 SCR 819 held that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity , the enterprise shall be strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident.
FACTS OF THE CASE
M C Mehta, an environmental activist, filed Writ Petition before the Supreme Court seeking closure and relocation of Shriram Caustic and Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant from Kirti Nagar Delhi. During pendency of the petition, oleum gas leaked from the said plant and a lawyer practicing at Tis Hazari Courts died due to inhalation of oleum gas. Applications were field by the Delhi Legal Aid & Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association for award of compensation to the persons who had suffered harm on account of escape of oleum gas.
The case was referred to larger bench for determination of substantial issues related with Article 21 and Article 32.
FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
A preliminary objection was raised by the Shriram that there was no claim for compensation in the original petition as such Supreme Court should not decide constitutional issues arising out of these applications.
The Supreme Court rejected the preliminary objections. The Supreme Court observed that it is undoubtedly true that the Petitioner could have applied for amendment of the Writ Petition so as to include a claim for compensation but merely because he did not do so, the applications for compensation made by the Delhi Legal Aid & Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association cannot be thrown out. These applications for compensation are for enforcement of Fundamental Rights to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and while dealing with such applications, a hyper technical approach cannot be adopted which would defeat the ends of justice. On numerous occasions it has been pointed out by the Supreme Court that where there is violation of Fundamental or other legal right of a person or class of persons or class of person who by reason of poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position cannot approach a Court of Law for justice, it would be open to any public spirited individual or social action group to bring an action for vindication of the fundamental or other legal right of such individual or class of individuals and this can be done not only by filing a regular writ petition but also by addressing a letter to the Court. If this Court is prepared to accept a letter complaining of violation of the fundamental right of an individual or a class of individuals who cannot approach the Court for justice, there is no reason why these applications for compensation which have been made for enforcement of the fundamental right of the persons affected by the oleum gas leak under Article 21 should not be entertained. The Court while dealing with an application for enforcement of Fundamental Right must look at the substance and not the form.
The Supreme Court observed that is well settled that Article 32 does not merely confer power on this Court to issue a direction, order or writ for enforcement of the fundamental rights but it also lays a constitutional obligation on this Court to protect the Fundamental Rights of the people and for that purpose it has all incidental and ancillary powers including the power to forge new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce the Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court did not make any definite pronouncement on whether Shriram can be considered State under Article 12 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court also considered the liability of an enterprise which are engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous industry. The rule in Ryland Vs. Fletcher was evolved in 1866 which provided that who for his own purposes being on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril and if he fails to do so, is prima facie liable for the damage which is the natural consequence of tis escape. This is known as strict liability.
The Supreme Court moved beyond Ryland Vs. Fletcher and developed a new jurisprudence. The Supreme Court held that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute non delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part.
The Supreme Court directed that Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board to take up the cases of all those who claim to have suffered on account of oleum gas and to file actions on their behalf in the appropriate court for claiming compensation against Shriram.
______________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.