DR. RAM MANOHOR LOA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW 2013
SUBJECT: LAW OF TORTS TOPIC: ENVIRONMENTAL TORT: ANALYSIS OF M.C. MEHTA CASE FINAL DRAFT
SUBMITTED TO:
SUBMITTED BY:
Mrs. GEETU SINGH Asst. Prof LAW
ABHISHEK YADAV ROLL NO.06
RMLNLU
SECTION: A
LUCKNOW
(4
TH
SEM.) B.A. LLb.
Acknowledgement A major research project like this is never the work of anyone alone. As one if can accomplish nothing, this report is not an exception. We would like to have some space to acknowledge some of them that frequently fade in to background. Firstly, I would like to thank respected Asst. Professor Mrs. Geetu Singh, Singh, for giving me such a golden opportunity to show my skills and capability through this project. His excellent supervision, invaluable suggestion and exhorting guidance had helped me to complete the project successfully. This project is the result of the extensive ultrapure study, hard work and labour, put into to make it worth reading. This project has been completed through the generous co-operation of various persons, especia lly my seniors, who, in their different potentials helped me a lot in giving the finishing touch to the project. This pr oject oject couldn‟t be completed without the help of my university‟s librar y Dr. Madhu Limaye Library and the internet facility in the campus. Thank you.
Chapterisation
Introduction
Facts Of The Case
Issues Involved
Decision
Authorities Referred
Reasons
Impact Of The Decision
Conclusion
Bibiliography
Ti tle: E nvir onmental onmental T orts: orts: An alysi alysi s Of M .C. M ehta Case Case
INTRODUCTION 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 tortuous liability for environmental wrongs emerged out of public nuisance. The entire law on environment protection is an offshoot of the liability for nuisance under the law torts. torts . The judicial interpretation of the fundamental right to life, in terms of environment protection, is the result of judicial activism in public interest litigation. The polluter pays principle has its roots in strict liability. The expansion of the scope of the environmental tort or mass tort is evident the evolution of the absolute liability liability rule in MC Mehta Case 1 , imposing obligation on the polluter. The judgment of M.C.Mehta case gave a new dimension to the Tort Laws in India. Before this case the principle of strict liability was applicable where the defendant could take the plea of defences, but this ruling of the Supreme Court the Absolute principle came up. Though the Court of Law is always open to hear any kind of injustice done to people and it provides compensation to the victims whose rights are violated or who have suffered loss due to the negligence of others but at this juncture the Hon‟ble Court could not provide any compensation to the victims of the oleum gas le ake tragedy. The Court could have given an interim compensation to the victims and to the families of those who have died in the course of the disaster. The interim compensation could have helped the victims by way of proper habilitation, providing proper medical facilities and others. This decision paved the way for the modified version of strict liability principle in India, by the majority judgment of Bhagwati, J. Before, the decision there was almost no recognition to environmental tort t ort India. It is great honour to have a lawyer like Mr. Mahesh Chandra Mehta , who fought against all the odds in making or firmly establishing environmental jurisprudence in India . Since the project topic is not very much broad, however it most crucial in the journey of environmental tort in India.
1
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819.
F acts of the th e Case Case
M.C. Mehta case is the famous tort law case which brought in the principle of absolute liability. Shri Ram Food and Fertilizer Industry, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Limited, was engaged in the manufacture of dangerous chemical. In December 1985, large amounts of Oleum gas leaked form one of the units in the heart of Delhi which resulted in the death of several persons. The leakage, resulted from the bursting of a tank containing Oleum gas, was caused by mechanical and human errors . It created a scare scar e among the people residing nearby and within two days, another leakage, a minor one, broke out as a result of Oleum gas escaping from the joints of a pipe. On 6 th December 1985, the District Magistrate, Delhi ordered Shri Ram to stop the manufacturing and processing of hazardous chemicals and fertilizers at their establishment in Delhi and to remove such chemicals and gases from Delhi. At this particular point, M.C. Mehta moved to Supreme Court to file PIL P IL and claim for f or compensation for the losses caused and also demanded that the closed establishment should not restart.2
L egal I ssues I nvolved nvolved
ON reading the judgment in entirety, it would flash that the particular decision dealing with three issues and out which only last one is of our prime importance and as other concerns with the constitutional law. Along with this, i would be dealing with another aspect that i s compensation for violation of fundamental rights.
Whether compensation would be provided to the victims of the Oleum gas leak tragedy if so then what would be the measurement of liability of such an enterprise engaged in caring hazardous industries?3
2
AIR 1987 SC 1086, wide para 01 (accessed on 17 th „ Mar‟13, 20:29) 3 Ibid, para 31
Ratio De D ecidendi cidendi “ 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 inherent 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 liabilit y is not subject to any of the exceptionswhich operate vis-a-vis the tortuous principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands in Rylands v. Fletcher. ”
An alysi alysi s of Judgme J udgment nt Finally the question which was seriously seriousl y debated before the Hon‟ble Court was the question as to what is the measure of liability of an enterprise which is engaged in an hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, if by reason of an accident occurring in such industry, persons die or are injured. Does the rule in Rylan ds v. 4
Fletcher apply or is there any other principle on which the liability can be determined. The rule in Rylands v. F letcher letcher was evolved in the year 1866 provides that a person who for his own purpose brings on to his
land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril and, if he fails to do so, is prima facie liable for the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape .5
Stri ct liabil ity to stri stri ct and and absolute absolute liabil ity pri nciple
Supreme court while adopting the strict liability principle from the cited case made some necessary changed to it and termed as strict and absolute liability principle and done away with all the defences available under English law. The liability under this rule is strict and it is no defence that the thing escaped without that person's will ful act, default or neglect or even that he had no knowledge of its existence. This rule laid down a principle of liability that if a person who brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do harm and such thing escapes and does damage to another, he is liable to compensate for the damage caused. Of course, this rule applies only to non-natural user of the land and it does not apply to things naturally on the land or where the escape is due to an act of God and an act of a stranger or the default of the person injured
4 5
1868 LR 3 HL 330 : (1863-71) All ER Rep 1 AIR 1987 SC 1086, wide para 31.
or where the thing which escapes is present by the consent of the person injured or in certain cases where there is statutory authority. Considerable case law has developed in England as to what is natural and what is non-natural use of land and what are precisely the circumstances in which this rule may be displaced. In England, there courts of law has restricted the principle of strict liability to a considerable extent. As plaintiff has to show that there was non natural use of land by the defendant and due which damage occurred to him. So in order to understand the non natural use of land one have to refer to this English case-law: In Gi l es v , it was held that there was no liability under the rule in respect of trees, shrubs and other plants that Walker are naturally found on the defendant's land, even if part of these do escape to the claimant's land. 6 Because there was tree a natural part of land and no other artificial or manmade or human agony involved. But this principle has evolved when there was not much industrial. The Indian Court felt that it was not necessary for them to consider these decisions laying down the parameters of this rule because in a modern industrial society with highly developed scientific knowledge and technology where hazardous or inherently dangerous industries are necessary to carry a part of the developmental programme. Therefore, court appeared to be in a mood of creativity because since court adopting a English principle, even modified it on the lines of welfare state in India. So judiciary has done very well while protecting the interests of common vulnerable citizens in this era of vociferous economic liberalization, globalization where every state seems to pushing its economy anyhow. This rule evolved in the 19th Century at a time when all these developments of science and technology had not taken place cannot afford any guidance in evolving any standard of liability consistent with the constitutional norms and the needs of the present day economy and social structure. Law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the fast changing society and keep abreast with the economic developments taking place in the country. As new situations arise the law has to be evolved in order to meet the challenge of such new situations. Law cannot afford to remain static. So the Court felt of evolving new principles and lay down new norms which would adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy. Judicial thinkers should not be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of that in any other foreign country. The court thus felt that they are certainly prepared to receive light from whatever source it comes but they have to build up their own jurisprudence and cannot countenance an argument that merely because the new law does not recognize the rule of strict and absolute liability in cases of hazardous or dangerous liability or the rule as laid down in Rylan ds v. 7
as is developed in England recognizes certain limit ations and responsibilities. Fletcher as
6
http://www.lawteacher.net/land-law/essays/non-natural-use-of-land.php (accessed on 17 th Mar ’13 , 22:41) ibid
7
Bhagwat,.J. thereafter stated that, “We in hold our hands back and I venture to evolve a new principle of
liability which English Courts have not done. We have to develop our own law and if we find that it is necessary to construct a new principle of liability to deal with an unusual situation which has arisen and which is likely to arise in future on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous industries which are concomitant to an industrial economy, there is no reason why we should hesitate to evolve such principle of
liability merely because it has not been so done in England. We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and nondelegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part. Since the persons harmed on account of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity carried on by the enterprise would not be in a position to isolate the process of operation from the hazardous preparation of substance or any other related element that caused the harm the enterprise must be held strictly liable for causing such harm as a part of the social cost for carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity. From this para, it can safely be concluded that Indian judiciary is not working the inferiority complex with English as the former one goes on to almost modifying modifying the principle as per the Indian Indian conditions and struck the way for new dimension of tort law in India. Further court goes on to say, if the enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads. Such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for private profit can be tolerated only on condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity indemnifies all those who suffer on account of the carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not. This principle is also sustainable on the ground that the enterprise alone has the resource to discover and guard against hazards or dangers and to provide warning against potential hazards. We would therefore hold that 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 vis-a-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.” The Court also pointed out that the measure of compensation in the kind of cases referred to must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have a deterrent effect. The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, 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.
Reasoning
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 haz ardous 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 i n Raylan d 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 this large scale environmental e nvironmental 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 tortuous 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 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.In addition to all these the judgment of M.C.Mehta case gave a new dimension to the case Tort Laws in India. Before this case the principle of strict liability was applicable where the defendant could take the plea of defences, but this ruling of the Supreme Court the Absolute principle came up. Though the Court of Law is always open to hear any kind of injustice done to people and it provides compensation to the victims whose rights are violated or who have suffered loss due to the negligence of others but at this juncture the Hon‟ble Court could not provide any compensation to the victims of the oleum gas leake tragedy.
The Court could have given an interim compensation to the victims and to the families of those who have died in the course of the disaster. The interim compensation could have helped the victims by way of proper habilitation, providing proper medical facilities and others.
Latter the Hon‟ble Hon‟ble Court has given exemplary compensation to the victims of the oleum gas tragedy and even today the Court is of the view that the compensation that was granted was not enough as compared to the losses suffered. Till date the Hon‟ble Court is thinking of pro viding more compensation to the victims, as people who are living even today in the area where the tragedy took place are suffering a lot, as the oleum gas is still present in the atmosphere. A lot of cases of still born child came up, and the medical report of many showed that the presence of oleum gas is the reason for those still born child. Whatever may it be the situation I hope that the Hon‟ble Court will definitely provide the victims with appropriate compensation, as the Hon‟ble Court deems fit keeping keep ing in mind the principles of Natural Justice
I mpact mpact Of Th e Decis Decisii on There are to date more than a dozen reported decisions of the Supreme court under the name of M.C Mehta v. Union of india. The petitioner in all these cases is a practising advocate of the Supreme court. And the present case decided on february 1986, was a PIL writ petition filed before the Supreme Court under article 32 of the constittuion. This decision paved the way for new kind of liablity in India legal system and later after their refinement known as Mehta Principles :
The writ jurisdiction of the higher courts can be invoked to seek remedies for environmental infringements as a vilation of fundamantal rights and fundamental duties under the constitution
The power of the court under this jurisdictionpermits the courts to mould appropriate remedies, including compensation, as remedial relief for vilation of fundamental rights and duties.
In other words, the above legal principles show how the Indian juridical techniques favour a flexible approach facilitating speedy remedial action and constant vigilance to support self control mechanisms of law. The Mehta principle also show the emerging postulates of tortuous liability in India whose principle focus is on the social limits of economic development. However, it has to be pointed out here that the award of compensation which has been developed in India under the new rationale of is different, and yet at the same time built upon compensation as understood in the common maw jurisdiction. This position, which might not have been obvious at the time of early Mehta case of 1987, is now clear from a more recent case , Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa 8. Here an award for compensation in public law proceedings under articles 32, 226, and 300 of the constitution of India., was held different from that envisaged in the private tort law action of the common law tradition.
8
(1993)2 SCC SCC 746
Conclusion In
this
context,
in M.C.
Mehta
v.
Union
of
India[4],
Justice
Bhagwati
observed-
“We have to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which will adequately deal with new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy. We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constructed by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of that in any foreign country. We are certainly prepared to receive light from whatever source it comes but we have to build build our own jurisprudence.” During British rule, courts in India were enjoined by Acts of Parliament in the UK and by Indian enactments to act according to justice, equity and good conscience if there was no specific rule of enacted law applicable to the dispute in a suit. In regard to suits for damages for torts, courts followed the English common law insofar as it was consonant with justice, equity equit y and good conscience. They departed from it when any of its rules appeared unreasonable and unsuitable to Indian conditions. An English statute dealing with tort law is not by its own force applicable to India but may be followed here unless it is not accepted for the reason re ason just mentioned. Therefore, the final position in India is for the pollution of air, water, noise, have been included under the fundamental right to life and liberty. And any public spirited person may approach to respected High court or Supreme court under the writ jurisdiction for the adequate remedy either in the form of injunction or compensation.
Bibliography Following will be some of the sources: Pri mar y Sour ces ces:
M.C. Mehta v. UNION OF INDIA Cases referred
Secondar Secondar y Sour ces ces :
C.M Araham, Environmental justice in India
Environmental Law In India, Second Edition, by P.Leelakrishnal, Lexis Nexis Butterworths,2005
Environmental Law And Policy In India, Second Edition, by Shyam Divan and Armin Rosencranz,
Oxford University Press, 2005.
Environmental Law, Second Edition, by S.C.Shastri, Eastern Book Company, 2005.
Indian Constitutional Law, Fifth Edition, by Prof M.P.Jain, W adhwa Nagpur, 2007
