MC Mehta VS Union of India

 

MC Mehta VS Union of India(1986)

 

                                   Introduction

The Oleum Gas Leak incident being similar in nature brought back the horrors of the Bhopal gas disaster, as a large number of people including both working people and the public were affected only after one year of the Bhopal gas tragedy and was closely monitored as an example as to how the courts should deal with companies accountable for environmental disasters. The complicated legal proceedings around the Bhopal Gas Tragedy is sadly an example of what should not be done in this situation, Oleum gas from Shriram Foods and Fertilizers which was a fertilizer plant leaked causing harm to numerous people.

Background facts

In the centre of a population of 200,000 people in the area of Kirti Nagar, Shriram’s Food and Fertiliser factory, Delhi was situated, which produced products like hard technical oil and glycerin soaps. M.C. Mehta, a social activist lawyer, submitted before the Supreme Court a writ petition seeking an order for closure and relocation of the Shriram Caustic Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant to an area where no real danger to the people’s health and security will exist.

Pending disposal of the petition, the Supreme Court allowed the plant to restart its capacity and work. On 4 and 6 December 1985, Oleum gas leaked from one of its units during the pending lawsuit, causing substantial harm to local residents as a result of the plant’s gas leakage.

As stated by the petitioner, a lawyer who practised in the Tis Hazari Courts also died as a result of oleum gas inhalation. As a result of the collapse of the structure on which it was built, the leakage resulted from the bursting of the tank containing oleum gas, and it generated fear among the citizens residing there. The people had hardly recovered from the shock of this tragedy when, within two days, another leakage occurred, though this time a minor one, due to the escape of oleum gas from a pipe’s joints, after which the claims for compensation were filed, for the people who had suffered damage as a  result of Oleum Gas escape, by the Delhi Legal Aid & Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association.

 

Facts of the Case

Ø On 4th December 1985, an incident of a major leakage of oleum gas happened from one of the units of Shriram. The leakage physically affected many common public – both the workmen as well as common people outside. Moreover, an advocate practising in the Tis Hazari Court died after inhaling oleum gas.

Ø The incident was confirmed by both the petitioner and the Delhi Bar Association. After two days, another minor leakage of oleum gas took place from the joints of a pipe on 6th December.

Ø Due to the subsequent two incidents of oleum gas leakage, the Delhi administration immediately responded by issuing an order under of the CrPC 1973, which directed Shriram to take the following steps:-

·     To stop using harmful chemicals and gases in the unit within two days

·     Remove the said chemicals to a safer place within seven days and not keep or store the chemicals in the same place where the disaster happened again;

·     Or, to appear in the Court of District Magistrate, Delhi to show cause for the non-enforceability of the mentioned order on 17th December 1985.

 

On the next day, both the above-mentioned writ petitions came up for hearing in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also took cognisance of the above order by the District Magistrate and noted that due to the “inadequacies”, it is not possible to take the steps urgently.

Issue of Case

The oleum gas leak case led to various issues to come into the light, which was:

· Whether these harmful industries should be permitted to operate in these areas?

· Whether a regulating mechanism should be established if they are permitted to function in such areas?

· How should the liability and amount of compensation be determined in such cases?

· How does Article 32 of the Constitution extend in these cases?

· Whether the rule of Absolute Liability or Ryland v Fletcher is to be followed?

· Whether ‘Shriram’ could be considered to be a ‘State’ within the ambit of Article 12?          

Legal Provision

The Supreme Court dealt with multiple legal issues in the two judgements passed respectively on 17th February and 20th December, 1986:-

Ø The first judgement examined the scope of public interest litigation in the area of environmental laws and mostly dealt with:-

· Whether the Supreme Court had the authority under Article 32 to decide Shriram to restart its caustic chlorine plant?

· What are the necessary conditions to be satisfied in order to run an industrial unit in a heavily populated area?

· The decision of constitution of Environmental Courts in India regionally.

 

Ø The constitutionally important questions were discussed in detail in the final judgement. The legal issues addressed therein are as follows:-

 

Ø Whether the jurisdiction and authority of the Supreme Court under Article 32 can be extended

· Whether applications for compensations to victims are maintainable under the said Article

· Whether Shriram falls under “other authorities” as mentioned in Article21.

· Whether the right to life under Article 21 is available against a private corporation like Shriram.

· If a letter addressed to any individual judge is maintainable as public interest litigation.

· Whether a new legal principle can be constructed if necessary where the existing legal principles are not applicable; and

· Lastly, whether the Supreme Court of India is bound to follow the decisions laid down in foreign case laws. 

Judgement

Showing extreme concerns for the safety of the people of Delhi from the leakage of hazardous chemicals, J. Bhagwati stated the proposal to eliminate toxic and hazardous factories could not be followed because they still contribute to improving the quality of life. Industries must, therefore, be established even if they are harmful as they are necessary to economic and social development. He was of the view that the risk or danger factor towards the public can only be hoped to be reduced by taking all the measures required to position these industries in an environment where the public is least vulnerable and the safety requirements are maximized in such industries. Consequently, the court ordered that the factory be opened temporarily under 11 conditions and appointed a committee of experts to control the activity of the industry. 

The main provisions set up by the government were:

· To create a safety committee for employees.

· Industry to publicize about the consequences and the proper treatment of chlorine.

· To train and instruct the employees regarding the safety of the plant through audio-visual services and to install loudspeakers to alert neighbours in case of gas leakage.

· Staff to use protective equipment, such as helmets and belts.

· That the employees of Shriram furnish the undertaking of the Chairman of Delhi Cloth Mills Limited that they will be “personally liable” for paying compensation for any death or injury in the event of gas escape resulting in death or injury to staff or people living in the vicinity.

Conclusion

The court observed that these hazardous industries contributed to people’s economic development and advancement. For example, these produce chlorine which helps in water disinfection. These industries also support employment of people. Thus, the final decision taken by the judges was to relocate such factories to less populated areas so that they would not pose a threat to human life. The court suggested the government adopt a national policy for the location of such toxic plants. It should be thoroughly checked if the plants are causing any risk to the community.