DEWANGAN |1

M.C.MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA

(AIR 1987 SC 1086)

Project submitted to:

Mrs. Stuti Nanda

(Faculty of Law)

Project submitted by

Siddharth Dewangan

Semester IV; Section: B

Roll no. 163

15.02.2016

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

UPARWARA, NEW RAIPUR, C.G.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |2

CERTIFICATE OF DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the project work entitled “M.C.Mehta v Union of India” submitted to
HNLU, Raipur, is record of an original work done by me under the able guidance of
Mrs. Stuti Nanda, Faculty Member Law, HNLU Raipur.

SIDDHARTH DEWANGAN

ROLL NO.: 163

SEMESTER – IV

B.A.L.L.B (Hons.)

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I feel highly elated to work on the topic “M.C.Mehta v Union of India”.

Thanks to the Almighty who gave me the strength to accomplish the project with
sheer hard work and honesty. This research venture has been made possible due to the
generous co-operation of various persons. To list them all is not practicable, even to
repay them in words is beyond the domain of my lexicon.

I express my deepest regard and gratitude for, Mrs. Stuti Nanda, Faculty of Law. Her
consistent supervision, constant inspiration and invaluable guidance have been of
immense help in understanding and carrying out the nuances of the project report

I take this opportunity to also thank the University and the Vice Chancellor for
providing extensive database resources in the Library and access to Internet.

Some printing errors might have crept in, which are deeply regretted. I would be
grateful to receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project report.

Siddharth Dewangan

Semester IV

Roll no: 163

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |4

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………… 5

OBJECTIVE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE.. …………………………………………… 7

3. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS..……..……………………………………….….8

4. CONSIDERATION IN FAVOUR OF SHRIRAM

FOOD AND FERTILIZERS. …………………………………………….…..12

5. JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT….............................................12

6. SCOPE OF THE JUDGEMENT …………………………………………….13

7. CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………. 14

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |5

INTRODUCTION

The Shriram Gas leak case was a very significant case in the field of environmental activism,
as it pitted the Supreme Court, the representative of the people, against one of the biggest and
most wealthy industrial establishments of India, Shri Ram Food and Fertilizers. Coming just
one year after the Bhopal Disaster, the largest industrial disaster of all times, it also sought to
address and rectify the miscarriage of justice of that time and reinstate faith in the judiciary.
The Shriram gas leak case was also unique of its kind as it was the first time when an
industry was solely held responsible for an accident and forced to pay compensation
regardless of what arguments it made in its defense. It is also worthy of noting that the
findings for the verdict was made not only on a legal basis but also a scientific one and doing
so the Supreme Court preformed an extra judiciary role. The verdict was also decided, taking
into account the need for industrialization and the fact that accidents are an unavoidable
consequence of it. Overall it was a fair decision, taking into account all the social, economical
and legal factors and established the Supreme Court as the protector of the environment and
the rights of the public.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |6

OBJECTIVES

1. To study the background of the case.

2. To have a detailed study of the judicial proceedings the case.

3. To study the concept of absolute liability.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The method of research adopted for the project is the analytical and descriptive method.

The texts that were used for the project include articles, research papers and news given in
various websites as well as online journals.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |7

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Shriram Food and Fertilizers, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mill Limited was a privately owned
company manufacturing caustic chlorine and oleum. All units were set up in a single complex
situated in approximately 76 acres and they are surrounded by thickly populated colonies
such as Punjabi Bagh, West Patel Nagar, Karampura, Ashok Vihar, Tri Nagar and Shastri
Nagar and within a radius of 3 kilometres from this complex there was a population of
approximately 2, 00,000. This by nature of the chemical processes involved was a polluting
industry and was creating a nuisance for the surrounding community of people. To address
this issue a public interest litigation (No. 12,739, 1985) was filed by environmentalist and
lawyer, M.C. Mehta, requesting the Supreme Court for the immediate closure and relocation
of the industrial complex.

On the 4th of December 1985, one month after the petition was filed and a day after the first
anniversary of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the worst industrial mishap in the history of
mankind, Oleum had leaked from the complex into the surrounding community resulting in
one fatality and many injuries.

Since the tragedy at Bhopal was fresh in the Public’s mind, there was a very strong outcry
over this incident and resulted in drastic steps by the administration. The Inspector of
Factories and the Assistant Commissioner of Factories issued orders to shut down the plant
on the 7th and 24th of December respectively under the Factories Act (1948). Shriram
responded by filing writ petitions of itself (No. 26 of 1986) to nullify the two orders and
interim opening of its caustic chlorine plant manufacturing; glycerine, soap, hard oil, etc.

On behalf of the gas leak victims the Delhi Legal aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar
Association filed for compensation along with the original petition of M.C. Mehta.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |8

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

I. Charges against Shriram Food & Fertilizers and Objections:

The articles of the Indian Constitution under which the petitioners moved the
Supreme Court were Article 21, Article 32 and an extension of Article 12. These
articles cover the domain of fundamental rights and hence their definition and
enforcement becomes subject to different opinions. This caused the debate on whether
the Supreme Court even had jurisdiction to hear these case. But the Supreme Court,
moved by the plight of the people, went above and beyond its jurisdiction to set up a
president and safeguard the rights of the weaker sections of society.

The first objection put by Shriram’s legal team was on the scope of Article 32, that
there was no demand for compensation in the first petition by M.C. Mehta, neither
was it added by amendment to it after the accident. They also stated that both Delhi
Legal aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association were not even the
belligerents in the first petition. It seemed that they were unhappy with the Supreme
Court championing this case against them. In reply the Supreme Court cited the case
of Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. The Union of India where it stated that the Supreme
Court is not merely an institution for constitutional remedy but also confers a
responsibility to safeguard the fundamental rights of the citizens, especially those
citizens who are from weaker sections of society and cannot themselves get justice.
The Supreme Court also stated that Shriram Food and Fertilizers was being hyper-
technical and hence its appeals on this ground were denied.

The second objection was that on the use of Article 21 (on whose violation the
petitions were filed). Shriram Food and Fertilizer was a privately owned enterprise. It
did not fall under Article 12 (being party to the state or state machinery) and hence if
it had violated any fundamental right of a citizen it could not be taken to court under
Article 21. Chief Justice Bhagwati, presiding over the case replied by saying that the
hearing for the case concluded on the 15th December 1986, and the verdict was being
delivered on the 19th December 1986, just after 4 days due to the lack of time and
considering the urgency it was not going to go into the details of definition of state
and non-state institutions under Article 12, but since Shriram Food and Fertilizers was
involved in the manufacture of commodities essential to the public life, and
supplemented the state industries in doing so, it enjoyed all the benefits and liabilities

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 DEWANGAN |9

which comes under Article 12, Chief Justice Bhagwati called Shriram Food and
Fertilizers as a “Public Character”. The Supreme Court also explicatively said that
any industry, be it private or public, which engages in the production of goods
essential to the public (infrastructure) sector was liable under Article 21. It also stated
that Shriram had been recipients of large government grants for their manufacture and
hence bore the same responsibility as well.

II. Application of concept of Absolute Liability:

Considering that Shriram Food and Fertilizers was in the business of manufacture and
handling to hazardous substances, injurious to public health the onus of prevention
and caution should have been entirely upon them .The court decided apt to use the
concept absolute liability against Shriram Food and Fertilizers. Citing the case of
Rylands Vs. Fletcher 1868 a person whom for his own purpose brings onto his land,
collects or keeps anything likely to do mischief must keep at his peril and if he fails to
do so is prima facie liable for the damages which is the natural consequences for its
escape. It held Shriram responsible for all the damages and liable for paying
compensation for its reversal. The only exception for this case was that of a natural
calamity or an act of a third party. The court determined that the leakage was caused
by a series of mechanical and human errors. This leakage resulted from the bursting
of the tank containing oleum gas as a result of the collapse of the structure on which it
was mounted and not by an act of sabotage by a third party and hence the concept of
absolute liability was applicable.

III. Setting up of an Enquiry Commission:

Responding to the petition filed by Shriram Food and Fertilizers requesting the
opening of the undamaged caustic chlorine plant, the Supreme Court appointed two
committees of experts; the Manmohan Singh Committee and the Nilay Choudhary
Committee. The committees were formed by the court to obtain a scientific and
objective overview on the situation. These committees were to advice the court in a
matter of their own expertise to help the court make a better judgement based on
scientific principles. The committees were issued with essentially three mandates.

Whether the caustic chlorine plant can be opened as it is without any modifications.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 D E W A N G A N | 10

The possible measures which can be taken to prevent any excessive pollution or
accidents in the future.

The safety devices which are installed in the complex and the devices that exist on the
market which can be installed to prevent such a tragedy.

IV. Findings of the Committee:

The committees set up by the Supreme Court to investigate the possibility of safely
opening and operating the Shriram Caustic chlorine plant made several startling
findings which reflected the profit over safety norms of that time.

Old and worn out machinery, which were corroded by chemicals and an accident
waiting to happen.

Indifference of the management towards safety, worker awareness and accident

training.

Lack of safety equipment eg. Fire extinguishers, rubber gloves, masks, etc.

V. Recommendations of the Committees :

Both the Manmohan Singh and Nilay committees on inspection of the plant made
many suggestions to the management. They strictly stated that if at any time they
were violated then the permission for the plant to operate could be revoked.

Shriram was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000 to meet the travel, boarding and
other expenses of the committees.

One operator must be specifically designated responsible for each safety device.

The chief inspector was directed to inspect the factory at least once a week.

The Central Pollution Control Board was asked to depute an inspector to inspect the
plant once a week to ensure that it was in compliance with the effluent and emission
limits of the Air and Water Act.

The management of Shriram was made to take an undertaking from the chairman and
managing director of the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. (the owners of Shriram) that in case

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 D E W A N G A N | 11

of any future leak or accident resulting in death or damages, the management will be
personally responsible for the compensation and must do so within one week of the
accident.

A worker’s safety committee must be constituted.

Educational posters on the post-exposure treatment of chlorine must be placed on the

gate and inside the premises of the plant.

Training and making aware of all the labourers of the plant via audio visual
programmes.

Installation of loudspeakers to alert the neighbouring communities on the event of a

chlorine gas leak.

Shriram was made to ensure that the workers made use of safety equipment and
provide regular health check-ups.

Shriram was made to deposit a sum or 20lac with the court registrar to settle any
claims made by aggrieved party in the leak, and the remaining sum was to be put
under interest in a nationalised bank and should there be any further accident in a
period of three years, to be invested by the court registrar as compensation.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 D E W A N G A N | 12

CONSIDERATIONS IN FAVOUR OF SHRIRAM FOOD AND

FERTILIZERS
The Supreme Court’s decision was not entirely one sided which is reflected in its decision to
not entirely shut down the operations of Shriram but force upon it monetary penalties and
better safety standards. Many factors influenced the Supreme Court’s decision of not being
entirely against Shriram.

Shriram’s caustic chlorine plant employed around 4000 people, and its closure would
immediately render them unemployed and unable to support themselves and their families.
Considering that most of these people were unskilled labourers and already residing in
poverty the Supreme Court decided not to take away their livelihood.

Shriram was in the business of producing daily commodities necessary to the daily life of the
public and hence its closure would produce a shortage.

Perhaps the most important factor was that it produced chlorine for the chlorination and
purification of water for the Delhi Jal Board. And also the unavailability of another source of
chlorine within Delhi and NCR.

JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court delivered its judgement on the 19th of December 1986 and on the basis
of absolute liability and deemed Shriram responsible for the accident and resultant
compensation of the victims. The court also instructed Shriram to comply with all the
recommendations of the Nilay Choudhary and Manmohan Singh Committees and issued a
strict notice that failure to do so will result in the immediate closure of the plant. The court
also instructed the victims of the Oleum gas leak to file their complain for compensation in
the Tis Hazari lower court of Delhi.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 D E W A N G A N | 13

SCOPE OF THE JUDGEMENT

The scope of the judgement was very significant in the history of enviro-legal cases. It set the
Indian Supreme Court to be the protector of the environment and under Article 21, not only a
fundamental right of life, but of quality, pollution free and a safe life. There were many
significant points of this case worth noticing.

This case pitted the Supreme Court defending the rights of one of the weakest section of
society against one of the most wealthy and powerful industrial establishments of India.

The Supreme Court, genuinely concerned regarding the welfare of the people, took a
proactive role in deposing of this case and preformed both judicial, executive and legislative
functions.

Due to the failure of the statutory body, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) the court
itself appointed committees and gave Shriram directions on up gradation of safety standards.

The court also preformed the function of an extra parliamentary body by insisting that the
concept of absolute liability be used and thus set a precedent for future cases to come.

Perhaps the most important function of the court was to address the concerns of the Bhopal
Gas Leak case which was still very much fresh in the mind of the public. The needed to
deliver a strict verdict to ensure to the public that the factory owner will be held liable and
such an incidence will not occur again, jeopardizing the public life.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 D E W A N G A N | 14

CONCLUSION
Hazardous industries are enterprises engaged in hazardous process which may cause adverse
effect on health of the people and the environment unless special care is taken to the leakage
of the raw material or by product. In this era of open global market economy hazardous
industries are playing a decisive role in the economic development and in the advancement of
the economy, but simultaneously they are causing the problem of risk to human life and
environment. The developing countries like India suffer from the acute problem of
environmental pollution.

The origin of the national policy on chemical and hazardous industries relates to two major
incidents of gas leakage, the Bhopal tragedy in 1994 and the oleum gas leak tragedy in 1995.
In these cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court felt that the English doctrine of Strict Liability
adopted by the House of Lords in Rayland v. Fletcher would not suffice the changing need of
the liability principle in India. So the Hon’ble Supreme Court felt the need of adopting the
principle of Absolute Liability or else the Court of law would fail to provide justice to the
victims of these large scale environmental disaster. 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 resulting, for
example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate
all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the
exceptions which operate in the tortious principle of strict liability. The larger and more
prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation payable by it for
the harm caused on account of an accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity by the enterprise.

The principles that came up from this historical case was the Principle of Absolute Liability,
secondly the Principle of Polluters Pays, thirdly the Principle of Precautionary Measures, and
finally the Principle of Highest Safety Standards came up in this particular case.

There after a number of enactments were made by the union legislature for the purpose of
controlling the environmental pollution, like the Hazardous Waste (Management and
Handling) Rules, 1989, secondly the Manufacturing Storage and Import of Hazardous Waste
Chemical Rules, 1989, thirdly the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, fourthly the National

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 D E W A N G A N | 15

Environmental Tribunal Act, 1995, an even many more legislation are made on the protection
of environment from pollution.

Again the scope of Art 21 was enlarged the Right to human health and healthy environment
was approved, the Right of enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of
life as a part of Right to Life was approved. And Right to clean environment was also
comprehended as a Right under Art 21 of The Constitution of India.

REFERENCE

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

 D E W A N G A N | 16

BOOKS

 Prof. Satish C Shastri, Environmental Law, 5th Edition, Eastern Book Company

 S. Santhakumar, Introduction to Environment Law, 2nd Edition, Lexis Nexis

India

WEBSITES:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._C._Mehta_v._Union_of_India

 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l265-M.C.-Mehta-v.-Union-of-
India.html

 https://www.elaw.org/content/india-mc-mehta-v-union-india-wp-127391985-
19861220-oleum-gas-leak-case

 http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/environmental-law/environmental-
law-and-policy-activism-law-essays.php

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY