Author: Manasvi Katiyar, Law Centre 1, Faculty of Law, Delhi University

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): This case is also known as 'The Oleum Leak Case.' It is a landmark environmental case in India. This case was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Judgement was given by Justice P.N. Bhagwati. The gas leak incident took place at the Shriram Food and Fertilizers Industries plant, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Limited, situated in Kirti Nagar, Delhi, in December 1985 causing severe harm to the people who were exposed to the gas. Therefore, MC Mehta, a public interest attorney, filed a writ petition under Article 21 and 32 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court. In this case the principle of Absolute Liability was established for the industries engaged in hazardous activities, which was the major development in Indian Environmental Law. The major legal issues involved here revolve around the Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction and the liability of enterprises. This case arose after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984). Initially, a division bench of the Supreme Court ordered the temporary closure of units. The bench later referred the matter to a five-judge constitutional bench.

In this case the parties involved here were the Petitioner, MC Mehta, an environmental activist and a public interest litigator and the Respondent, Union of India and Shriram Food and Fertilizers Industries, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills. 

In the city of Kirti Nagar, Delhi, there was a privately owned fertilizer plant called Shriram Food And Fertilizer’s Ltd., a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd., which was situated in a densely populated area approximately 76 acres of land where around 200,000 people lived. These units manufactured chemicals such as caustic soda, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, and sulphuric acid. Due to the plants’ chemical processes, it released hazardous substances (oleum gas), causing a public nuisance. In response to the harmful emission and to seek closure and relocation of the plant to other places, Petitioner, MC Mehta, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the closure of Shriram’s hazardous industrial units. 

While the pendency of the petition Oleum Gas got leaked at one of the factories resulting in severe harm to those who breathed in the gas, including the death of an advocate. After two days another leakage incident took place at the site. In response to this incident, the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association filed applications seeking compensation for the individuals who had suffered harm due to the escape of oleum gas. Under sub-section (1) of Section 133, the Delhi Magistrate ordered Shriram Food and Fertilizer to stop using harmful chemicals and remove them to safer places. 

1. What is the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 32 ? 

2. Whether Art. 21 is available against Shriram which is owned by Delhi Cloth Mills Limited, a public company limited? 

3. What level of liability applies to companies involved in dangerous industries? Whether the Rylands v. Is Fletcher rule applicable in such a situation? 

1. The court examined the first issue and made the following observations in the oleum gas leak case: 

• Article 32 not only empowers the Court to issue directions, orders, or writs, but it also imposes a constitutional obligation to protect the fundamental rights of the People. 

• The Court can award compensation in appropriate cases as part of remedial relief. However, such infringement must be evident, gross, and affecting many people. 

Therefore, directions were given to the industries to enforce strict safety rules. Also, Shriram Food and Fertilizer, was directed to provide compensation to the affected people. 

2. The court examined the second issue and made the following observation- 

3. The Court stated that art. 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life, and this includes the right to operate in a clean and pollution free environment and the industries should not endanger this right.  

4. The court suggested that the industries dealing with harmful substances should not be located in crowded areas and should be moved to safer locations. 

5. Justice P.N. Bhagwati in this case emphasized that shutting down hazardous industries completely is not a practical solution, as it would harm the nation’s economic growth and lead to mass unemployment. So, instead of closure the court should focus on reducing risks. 

6. The court examined the third issue and made the following observations-

7. The Supreme Court of India has held that industries engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities have an absolute duty to prevent any harm to anyone from such activity. 

8. The Supreme Court departed from the English strict liability rule as stated in Rylands v. Fletcher, and created a completely new principle altogether – absolute liability. Under this doctrine, if a hazardous enterprise causes harm to any person or property, it will be absolutely liable to compensate the victims, regardless of any negligence or fault on its part, and indeed without any defences that may have otherwise been available to the enterprise.

9. Case Laws- 

10. Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) 

11. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case, 1988) 

12. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case, 1997) 

13. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 

14. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 

15. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)

Its impact reflected in the recent case of In re: Gas Leak at LG Polymers Chemical Plant in RR Venkatapuram Village, Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh (2020), also known as Visakhapatnam gas leak case (2020) or Vizag gas leak case (2020). The ruling ultimately laid the foundation for many future cases, such as Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India(1996), and Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India(1996) 

The judgement also paved the way for legislative measures, including the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 which deals with liability, compensation and providing relief to the victims. 

The Supreme Court’s decision in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India was a landmark step for the environmental law. By establishing the doctrine of absolute liability, the court ensured that hazardous industries must bear full responsibility for their negligent act. However, there is a lack of environmental governance, inadequate monitoring and mechanism. 

The case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987) has ever since emerged as a landmark case not only in environmental activism but also in judicial activism. It still acts as a precedent while deciding similar cases. It made it clear that industry involved in hazardous operations would be liable for any harm, providing more protections for public health and safety. The case broadened the meaning of India Constitution under Article 21 determining that the right to life also included the right to a clean environment. Moreover, the decision of the Court to award compensation under Article 32 of the Indian constitution to address violations in regards to fundamental rights was a significant step in improving constitutional remedies.