M.C Mehta vs. Union of India

 

CASE COMMENT

 

M.C Mehta vs. Union of India (1987 AIR 1086)

 

BENCH:P.N Bhagawati(Chief Justice)

G.L MisraRangnathOza

M.M. Dutt

K.N. Singh

PETITIONER:……..………….……M.C Mehta

Vs.

RESPONDENT: ……………………Union of India

CITATION:1987 SCR (1) 819; AIR 1987 965

DATE OF JUDGMENT:  December 12, 1986

DECISION BY: P.N Bhagawati

 

 

INTRODUCTION

In the case of M.C Mehta vs. Union of India (Oleum gas leak case)constitutional bench has dealt with a writ petition in terms of Article 32 of the constitution of India (bench of three judges). Oleum gas has escaped the shriram branch and as a result Delhi and the Delhi Legal Aid and advisory board of the Bar association have applied for compensation for people injured in oleum’s escape. The Supreme Court was obliged to rule on the matter with regard to the extent and nature of its justification stated in Article 32 of the constitution of India. Article 32 sets out the legal requirement of the constitution to support human rights and that is why the High court will have both related functions and powers. Under article 32 of the constitution we may prescribe any proper procedure for the proper purpose of the procedure. It also has right to appeal, may provide redress for human rights violations and remedial measures may include authorization to pay compensation whenever applicable.

 

 

BACKGROUND

Shriram Foods and Fertilizer Industries had many units operating within the production of sodium hydroxide, chlorine, acid, chlorine-based lime, super phosphate, vanaspati, soap, vitriol, alum anhydrous sodium sulfate, high concentration hypochlorite and active earth. All the units are installed simultaneously located on an area of ​​approximately 76 hectares and are surrounded by densely populated colonies such as Punjabi Bagh, West Patel Nagar, Karampura, Ashok Vihar, Tri Nagar and Shastri Nagar, with a population of about 2,00,000 in the center. 3 km of this complex.

On December 6, 1985, the Regional Magistrate, Delhi, ordered Shriram to suspend the use of hazardous chemicals and gases, in accordance with Section 133 (1) of Cr.P.C, which includes chlorine, oleum, super chlorine, phosphate, etc., its Delhi site within two days and the withdrawal of these chemicals and gases in Delhi within seven days is allowed to resume.

 

FACTS

·       A writ petition was filed by M.C Mehta, a social activist lawyer, seeking closure for Shriram Industries because it had been engaged in manufacturing of hazardous substances and located in a densely populated area of Kirti Nagar. While the petition was pending, on 4 and 6December 1985, there was leakage of oleum gas from one among its units which caused the death of an advocate and affected the health of several others. The incident took place on December 4, 1985.

 

·        A large number of people were affected just after one year of the Bhopal gas disaster – both among the workers and the public. This incident also reminded the Bhopal gas holocaust.

 

·        Pursuant to Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution, M.C Mehta filed a PIL seeking the closure and relocation of the Shriram Caustic Chlorine and Vitriol Plant situated in a thickly populated area of Delhi.

 

·        Factories were closed down immediately as the Inspector of Factories and Commissioner (Factories) issued separate orders on December 8 and 24, 1985. (This incident took place just a few months before the Environment (Protection) Act came into force, and became a guiding force for having an effective law like this).

 

·        There are six recorded orders in the Supreme Court of India's Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industry case, out of these six, four were pronounced before the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was passed, and the date it came into effect. Thus the reported orders are relevant and important as they shed new light on how highly toxic and unsafe substances industries should be addressed and contained and controlled to minimize hazards to workers and the general public.

 

·       The court also indicated that the Government should establish a national policy for the location of toxic or dangerous industries and that a decision on the relocation of these industries should be taken with a view to eliminate risk to the community.

 

·        The Court held that Shriram industries must deposit Rs 20 lakhs and include a bank guarantee for Rs.15 lakhs to pay insurance claims from victims of Oleum gas if any escape from chlorine gas occurred within three years from the date of order resulting in death or injury to any worker or living public in the vicinity. The district judge, Delhi, was able to assess the amount of compensation. It also demonstrates that the court made the industry "absolutely liable" and compensation due as though the accident was proved without allowing the industry to participate. The District Judge, Delhi, was able to decide the amount of compensation. It also indicates that the court found the industry "completely responsible (Absolutely liable)" and compensation payable for the accident was confirmed without asking the industry to attend.

 

·        A writ petition was filed by M.C Mehta, a social activist lawyer, seeking closure for Shriram Industries because it had been engaged in manufacturing of hazardous substances and located in a densely populated area of Kirti Nagar. While the petition was pending, on 4 and 6December 1985, there was leakage of oleum gas from one among its units which caused the death of an advocate and affected the health of several others. The incident took place on December 4, 1985.

 

·        A large number of people were affected just after one year of the Bhopal gas disaster – both among the workers and the public. This incident also reminded the Bhopal gas holocaust.

 

·        Pursuant to Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution, M.C Mehta filed a PIL seeking the closure and relocation of the Shriram Caustic Chlorine and Vitriol Plant situated in a thickly populated area of Delhi.

 

·        Factories were closed down immediately as the Inspector of Factories and Commissioner (Factories) issued separate orders on December 8 and 24, 1985. (This incident took place just a few months before the Environment (Protection) Act came into force, and became a guiding force for having an effective law like this).

 

·        There are six recorded orders in the Supreme Court of India's Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industry case, out of these six, four were pronounced before the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was passed, and the date it came into effect. Thus the reported orders are relevant and important as they shed new light on how highly toxic and unsafe substances industries should be addressed and contained and controlled to minimize hazards to workers and the general public.

 

·        The court also indicated that the Government should establish a national policy for the location of toxic or dangerous industries and that a decision on the relocation of these industries should be taken with a view to eliminate risk to the community.

 

·       The Court held that Shriram industries must deposit Rs 20 lakhs and include a bank guarantee for Rs.15 lakhs to pay insurance claims from victims of Oleum gas if any escape from chlorine gas occurred within three years from the date of order resulting in death or injury to any worker or living public in the vicinity. The district judge, Delhi, was able to assess the amount of compensation. It also demonstrates that the court made the industry "absolutely liable" and compensation due as though the accident was proved without allowing the industry to participate. The District Judge, Delhi, was able to decide the amount of compensation. It also indicates that the court found the industry "completely responsible (Absolutely liable)" and compensation payable for the accident was confirmed without asking the industry to attend.

 

 

 

ISSUES

 

[1] What is the scope of Article 21 and Article 32 of the constitution?

[2] Whether the rule of last absolute liability to be followed?

[3] Issue of the compensation?

 

 

CONTENTIONS

 

[ARGUMENTS]

There was one complaint filed by the defendants' lawyers, which barred the Court from proceeding with the constitutional dispute as there was no dispute over compensation originally stated in the petition and it could not be stated that the matter arose. In a written request. However, in dismissing the argument, the Court stated that while it is undoubtedly true that the claimant would have wanted to amend the claim to claim compensation, but because he did not do so, the claims claim cannot be met. Pulled out. Such claims for compensation are for the protection of the fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and we cannot pursue a high-tech approach when dealing with these claims that could challenge justice conclusions.

Respondents argued that if you were to be considered a State in accordance with Article 12 of the Constitution you would have to sue us in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution, which provides remedies for violations of fundamental rights and for these rights are liable.

 

JUDGMENT

Chief Justice Bhagwati has expressed his deep concern for the safety of the people of Delhi from the leak of dangerous substances, such as the one here - oleum gas. He was of the opinion that we could not accept the goal of eradicating the chemical or hazardous industries as they also help to improve the quality of life. So even more dangerous industries should be developed because they are important for economic growth and social development.

"We can only hope to reduce the magnitude of the risk or danger to the community by taking all possible steps to access these industries in a way that will place less risk to the community and increase safety requirements for those industries.

 

Although the Supreme Court was of the opinion that a complete ban on public services in the above-mentioned industry would interfere with construction activities.

It was also noted that a permanent closure of the factory would result in a shortage of 4,000 workers, a caustic soda industry, and an increase in the social problem of poverty. The court then ordered that the factory be temporarily reopened under 11 conditions, and formed a committee of experts to oversee the operation of the factory.The court also ruled that a national strategy would be put in place to ban the toxic and dangerous industries by the government and that a decision would have to be made on the relocation of these industries to reduce environmental risks.

The court noted that, without further ado, it could create new solutions under Article 32 and develop new strategies for enforcing basic rights. The powers under Article 32 are not limited to preventive measures where fundamental rights are threatened, but also to remedial measures where rights have already been violated (BandhuaMuktiMorcha v. Union of India). However, the court stated that it has the power to grant relief relief in cases where the violation of fundamental rights is serious and proprietary and affects the situation.

It was argued that the compensation rate should be linked to the size and strength of the industry in order for it to have a deterrent effect on compensation. If the industry is large and very successful then a lot of money can be paid. The court did not order compensation for the victims as it left the case open due to a lack of time to determine whether Shriram, an independent organization, is a state or jurisdiction that could be referred to Article 21.

The court has adopted a new credit rating stating "no error" (total credit). That industry is involved in risky practices that endanger the health and safety of the people who work and live nearby and owe the community an insurmountable obligation to ensure that no damage is done to anyone. The industry must perform its functions with the highest safety requirements and the company must be fully responsible for compensating such damage in the event of any damage.

 

CONCLUSION

Dangerous industries are activities that are involved in hazardous processes that can have negative effects on human health and the environment unless special care is taken to reward raw materials or products. Dangerous industries play an important role in economic growth and economic development in this time of globalization, but at the same time they create a dangerous situation for human health and the environment. Developing countries like India are facing the problem of pollution.

The origins of national chemical and hazardous industries are linked to two major gas leaks, the 1994 Bhopal disaster and the 1995 oleum gas leak disaster. In these cases, the Supreme Court found that the English doctrine of Strict Liability presented in the case of Ryland v. Fletcher by the House of Lords will not satisfy the changing need for a debt policy in India. The Supreme Court therefore saw the need to follow the concept of Comprehensive Responsibility, or else the Court of Justice would refuse to grant justice to the victims of this great natural disaster. When an employee is involved in a hazardous or naturally hazardous activity and causes injury to anyone as a result of the accident in the performance of those hazardous or naturally hazardous activities for example, in the escape of toxic gas, the employee has a firm and complete obligation to compensate all victims of the accident. Large and highly profitable, when it increases the amount of compensation we charge for damage caused by an accident in the performance of an accident or in nature. Dangerous performance.

All of this suggests that, in its judgment, the Supreme Court stressed that certain basic standards must be defined by the state and, in addition, must also make rules regarding the management and management of hazardous substances, including the process of developing and managing industries. Low risk to humans, animals, etc.

Furthermore, by demonstrating that they have not been negligent in dealing with hazardous substances or by taking all necessary and appropriate steps in dealing with them, industries cannot free themselves from responsibility. Therefore, in this case, the court used the principle that there is no - a criminal case.

In the midst of all this the M.C.Mehta case judgment has given a new dimension to Tort Laws of India. Until this case a strict legal obligation was used in which the defendant could sue for damages, but this Supreme Court decision came up with a complete policy. Although the Court of Justice is still open to hear of certain types of injustices perpetrated against people and provides assistance to victims whose rights have been violated or suffered as a result of the negligence of others, this time the Supreme Court has not been able to grant it. Compensation for victims of the oleum gas leak disaster. The Court could have provided temporary relief to the victims and families of those who died during the disaster. Temporary compensation may benefit victims by ensuring adequate rehabilitation, appropriate medical services and more.