1st case (Facts)[1] -:
A writ petition was filed by M.C Mehta, a social activist lawyer, he sought closure for Shriram Industries as it was engaged in manufacturing of hazardous substances and located in a densely populated area of Kirti Nagar.While the petition was pending, on 4 and 6 December 1985, there was leakage of oleum gas from one of its units which caused the death of an advocate and affected the health of several others. The incident took place on December 4, 1985.
Just after one year from the Bhopal gas disaster a large number of persons – both amongst the workmen and public were affected. This incident also reminded of the Bhopal gas holocaust.
M.C Mehta filed a PIL under Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution and sought closure and relocation of the Shriram Caustic Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant which was located in a thickly populated area of Delhi.
Factories were closed down immediately as Inspector of Factories and Commissioner (Factories) issued separate orders dated December 8 and 24, 1985 . This incident took place only a few months before Environment (Protection) Act came into force, thus became a guiding force for having an effective law like this.
There are six reported orders in the Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industry case of the Supreme Court of India, out of these six, four orders were pronounced before Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was passed and the date from which it came into force. Thus the reported orders are relevant and important as they shed new light on how highly toxic and hazardous substances industry should be dealt with and contained and controlled to minimize hazards to the workers and general public.
Issues -:
- Whether such hazardous industries to be allowed to operate in such areas
- If they are allowed to work in such areas, whether any regulating mechanism be evolved.
- Liability and amount of compensation how to be determined.
Decision -:
Chief Justice Bhagwati showed his deep concern for the safety of the people of the Delhi from the leakage of hazardous substances like the one here – oleum gas. He was of the opinion that we cannot adopt the policy to do away with chemical or hazardous industries as they also help to improve the quality of life, a sin this case this factory, was supplying chlorine to Delhi Water Supply Undertaking which is used to maintain the wholesomeness of drinking water. Thus industries even if hazardous have to be set up since they are essential for economic development and advancement of well being of the people.
"We can only hope to reduce the element of hazard or risk to the community by taking all necessary steps for locating such industries in a matter which would pose least risk of danger to the community and maximizing safety requirements in such industries "
Thus the Supreme Court was of the opinion that total ban on the above industry of public utility will impede the developmental activities.
It was also observed that permanent closure of the factory would result in the unemployment of 4000 workers, caustic soda factory and add to social problem of poverty. Therefore the court made an order to open the factory temporarily subject to eleven conditions and appointed an expert committee to monitor the working of the industry.
The court also suggested that a national policy will have to be evolved by the Government for the location of toxic or hazardous industries and a decision will have to be taken in regard of relocation of such industries with a view to eliminate risk to the community.
Some of the conditions formulated by the government were -:
- The Central Pollution Control Board to appoint an inspector to inspect and see that pollution standards set under the Water Act and Air Act to be followed.
- To constitute Worker's Safety Committee
- Industry to publicise the effects of chlorine and its appropriate treatment
- Instruct and train its workers in plant safety through audio visual programme, install loudspeaker to alert neighbors in the event of leakage of gas
- Workers to use safety devices like masks and belts
- And that the workers of Shriram to furnish undertaking from Chairman of DCM Limited, that in case of escape of gas resulting in death or injury to workmen or people living in vicinity they will be "personally responsible " for payment of compensation of such death or injury .
The Court also directed that Shriram industries would deposit Rs 20 lakhs and to furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 15 lakhs for payment of compensation claims of the victims of oleum gas if there was any escape of chlorine gas within three years from the date of order resulting in death or injury to any workmen or living public in the vicinity . The quantum of compensation was determinable by the District Judge , Delhi .It also shows that the court made the industry "absolutely liable " and compensation to be paid as when the injury was proved without requiring the industry to be present in the case .
The above mentioned conditions were formulated to ensure continuous compliance with the safety standards and procedures laid by the committees (Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee ) so that the possibility of hazard or risk to workmen could be reduced to nil .
This all indicates that Supreme Court in its judgement emphasized that certain standard qualities to be laid down by the government and further it should also make law on the management and handling of hazardous substances including the procedure to set up and to run industry with minimal risk to humans , animals etc.
Further the industries cannot absolve itself of the responsibility by showing either that that they were not negligent in dealing with the hazardous substance or they took all the necessary and reasonable precautions while dealing with it. Thus the court applied the principle of no – fault liability in this case .
2nd case[2]:
It modified some of the conditions which were laid down by Supreme Court ordered to be closed .
3rd case[3]:
Issues:
In this case three important issues were raised -:
- What is the scope of Article 32 of Constitution ?
- The rule of last Absolute Liability or Rylands vs Fletcher rule to be followed .
- Issue of compensation to be awarded
Decision-
- Scope of Article 32
The court observed that apart from issuing directions , it can under Article 32 forge new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce fundamental rights . The power under Article 32 is not confined to preventive measures when fundamental rights are threatened to be violated but it also extends to remedial measures when the rights are already violated (vide Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India ) .The court however held that it has power to grant remedial relief in appropriate cases where violation of fundamental rights is gross and patent and affects persons on a large scale or where affected persons are poor and backward.
- Which rule to be followed Absolute Liability or Rylands v. Fletcher case?
Regarding the measure of liability of an industry engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in case of an accident the court examined whether the rule in Rylands vs Fletcher would be applicable in such cases.
This rule laid down if a person who brings on to his land and collects and keep there anything likely to do harm and such thing escapes and does damage to another he is liable to compensate for the damage caused. The liability is thus strict and it is no defence that the thing escaped without the person's wilful act, default or neglect.
The exceptions to this rule are that it does not apply to things naturally on the land or where the escape is due to an act of god, act of stranger or the default of the person injured or where there is statutory authority .
The court held that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher will all of its exceptions is not applicable for the industries engaged in hazardous activities.
Supreme Court expounded that,
"This rule evolved in the 19th century at a time when all these developments of science and technology has not taken place. We have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which would adequately deal with the new problems which arise in highly industrialized economy "
The court introduced new "no fault " liability standard (absolute liability). An industry engaged in hazardous activities which poses a potential danger to health and safety of the persons working and residing near owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone. Such industry must conduct its activities with highest standards of safety and if any harm results, the industry must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm. It should be no answer to industry to say that it has taken all reasonable care and that harm occurred without negligence on its part. Since the persons harm would not be in position to isolate the process of operation from the hazardous preparation of the substance that caused the harm, the industry must be held absolutely liable for causing such harm as a part of the social cost of carrying on the hazardous activities. This principle is also sustainable on the ground that the industry alone has the resource to discover and guard against hazards or dangers and to provide warning against potential hazards.
- Issue of Compensation-
It was held that the measure of compensation must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the industry so that the compensation will have a deterrent effect. The larger and more prosperous by the industry, the greater will be the amount of compensation payable by it.
The court did not order payment of compensation to victims since it left open the question due to lack of time to adjudicate whether Shriram, a private corporation was a state or authority which could be subjected to the discipline of Article 21.
[1] AIR 1987 SC 965
[2] AIR 1987 SC 982
[3] AIR 1987 SC 1086
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
M.C Mehta v. Union of India,1986 (Download PDF)
The Author, Roopali Lamba is a 3rd Year student of Chander Prabhu Jain College of Higher Studies and School of Law, New Delhi. She is currently interning with LatestLaws.com.
Picture Source :
