M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Gas Leak in Shriram Factory),

 

CASE COMMENTARY

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Gas Leak in Shriram Factory),

Supreme Court of India

Appellant- M.C. MEHTA AND ANR.

Respondent- UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation- 1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819

Date of judgment- 20 December, 1986

Judge Bench- Bhagwati, P.N. (CJ)

 

Introduction

Bhopal Gas Tragedy

The Bhopal gas tragedy is considered as one of the biggest industrial disasters this world has faced. This disaster occurredin 1984, in the city of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. This 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). The MIC is considered as the most hazardous chemical used for industrial purposes. On the night of 2-3 December 1984, there was a leak of the MIC gas in the plant. This leak had increased and contaminated the air and when people got exposed to it, they felt various symptoms like coughing, vomiting, severe eye irritation and suffocation. This led towards the death of thousands of people and lakhs of people got permanently impaired in one way or another as a result of this disaster. The cases were filed against the majority holder UCC which was a US company. These criminal and civil cases were filed in the US courts. The government of India enacted the Bhopal Gas tragedy disaster Act to deal with the claims arising out of this tragedy. A certain amount of some 470 million dollars was granted initially by the UCC as a part of settlement with the government of India for compensation. This tragedy brought in a havoc and after this attention was brought on in the need of various laws regulating the environment protection. One such act was the Environment Protection Act of 19863 and many more came in line over a period of time

Facts of MC Mehta v Union of India:

1.  A writ petition was filed by M.C Mehta Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution. He sought closure for Shriram Food and Fertilizer as it was engaged in the manufacturing of hazardous substances and located in a densely populated area of Kirti Nagar. While the petition was pending, there was a leakage of oleum gas from one of its units, which caused the death of an advocate and affected the health of several others.

2.  Just one year after the Bhopal gas disaster, a large number of persons–both amongst the employees and public were affected. This incident also reminds us of the Bhopal gas holocaust.

3.  Factories were closed down immediately as Inspector of Factories and Commissioner (Factories) issued separate orders. This incident took place only a few months before Environment (Protection) Act came into force, thus becoming a guiding force for having an effective law like this.

 Contentions from of both the sides

-       Petitioners after the spillage of the gas demanded a complete disclosure of the industry in the area and proper remedial measures for the aggrieved.

-       The respondents argued that the court in this case should not go with these applications of compensation and other constitutional issues. Respondents argued that the escape of oleum gas took place after the filing of the writ petition and petitioners should have applied for the amendment in writ petition and included the compensation part inside it too but no such amendment was made and hence these other issues of compensation and constitutional importance cannot be considered.

Issues

1-    What is the scope of Article 32 of the Constitution?

The court in this case referred to the Judgement of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, in which court held that scope under Article 32 not only includes preventive measures when Fundamental Rights are under the threat of violation but it also includes remedial measures when rights are already being violated. This is necessary for the purpose of securing enforcement of the Fundamental Rights especially when it comes to the involvement of the rights of poor, underprivileged and disadvantaged section of the society.

2-    What should be applicable Rule of Absolute Liability and Ryland v. Fletcher case?

In Ryland v. Fletcher, the principle of Strict Liability was laid down by the English Court in 1866. This principle states that “any person who keeps any hazardous substances on his premises will be held responsible if such substances escape the premises and causes any damage”.

The courts in India were reluctant to accept the concept of Strict liability as it was believed that with the advancement and technological development of industries in the developing era, the involvement of hazardous and harmful material in the industry has increased manifold and this has posed a greater threat they came up with a new principle in this case. This principle is known as Absolute Liability.

Absolute Liability - According to this rule, any person involved in inherently dangerous or hazardous activity, or any harm is caused to anyone because of any accident occurred during carrying out those activities, the person who carried out those activities would be absolutely liable.

The court held that it becomes the complete responsibility of the industry in this present case to keep a check irrespective of the company’s claim that it has taken all proper measures and there is no negligence on its part. The person harmed deserves justice and has Fundamental Rights which should be upheld in any condition.

3-    Compensation to be awarded.

The magnitude and capacity of the companies will decide the amount and measure of compensation. The bigger the industry is, the more compensation will be.

4-    whether it comes within the definition of State mentioned in Article 21.

The petitioner contended that though Shriram industries does not directly working under the shadow of state and prima facie seems like a private corporation because under governments self - announced policy it functions independently. But it was contended that the mode of working of the industry determined by the state and its actions effects public and environment at large hence it comes under the definition of State under Article 21. But on the other hand, it was argued that such rules which are laid down for serving as guidelines acts only as police power over the industries and do not necessarily take away their independence. Such regulations should not convert a private corporation into a public one. Finally, it was affirmed that Shriram was only working under the shadow of the government and did not become an integral part of the state. Court considered that increasing the ambit of Article 12 this way would create a discouragement in new and upcoming private corporations which are very much essential for the development of the nation. But the court also held that this issue is quite more exhaustive then, it seems and there is a need for a lot more deliberation over it. Hence the court did not deliver any affirmed judgement in that case regarding this.

Analysis

This is considered one of the significant decisions in the field of environmental law in our country. This took up different new circumstances and varied interpretations of Fundamental Rights. The rule laid down, in this oleum gas leak case, is still being utilized by the court. Thus, this case filled in as a milestone ruling throughout the entire existence of the Indian Judiciary.

The Oleum Gas Leak case showcased the reality of ecological issues. In the current scenario of a mechanical turn of events and businesses, the danger to the climate is inescapable. As much as this development is fundamental for the advancement of the general public, there is a critical need to centre consideration towards growing environmental concerns.

The asset of the environment is provided to everyone on this planet and it is the right of every individual to enjoy a healthy environment and everyone additionally should work for it and contributes towards its improvement.

Judgement

The court observed that the scope of Article 32, under which the Supreme Court may issue writs was not limited as preventive measures when fundamental rights were at threat, but also as remedial measures when such rights stand violated.

The Court stated that the rule of Strict liability that emerged in the 19th century in England was not enough to deal with the emerging number of environmental law cases especially when science has advanced a lot. Therefore, industries were deemed to work with utmost caution and be made absolutely liable in case of any harm caused to the society, even in the absence of negligence on their part.

The Court allowed the caustic chlorine plant of Shriram Foods and Fertilisers Industries to be restarted with stringent restrictions. They included regular inspections by Pollution Control Boards.

The Court ordered that the amount of compensation was to be in proportion to the magnitude and capacity of the industries. Shriram Industries to deposit twenty lakh rupees and further furnish a bank guarantee of fifteen lakh rupees for the payment of compensation to the victims. The guarantee was for compensating the victims if any further escape of chlorine gas happened within three years from the date of order. The amount of compensation was left to be decided by the District Judge of Delhi if such a case ever arose.

The petitioner was also awarded as a token of appreciation a Rs. 10,000 by the way of costs paid by the Shriram Industries.

Conclusion

The judgement is still considered as one of the major, ruling in the field of environmental law in our country. It took up various new situations and ways of interpretation of the laws and Fundamental Rights. The stances laid down in this case are still being used by the court. Hence this case served as landmark ruling in the history of Indian Judiciary.Justice Bhagwati after taking into account the health and safety concerns of the citizens held that these industries must continue to operate because they contribute to a large portion of the country’s economic and social development, therefore stating that the petition to eliminate these toxic industries cannot be allowed. He held that the risk factor can be reduced to a considerable extent by taking all the possible measures to ensure that these industries must be situated in an environment where the citizens are the least-affected and all the safety protocols must be strictly adhered by these industries. In addition to this, the reason that it would lead to unemployment of 1400 people was another serious concern. Subsequently, the industry was ordered to be reopened on a temporary basis under 11 conditions and a panel of experts were appointed to control the industry’s operations.