mc mehta case summary in ppt slide show format.pptx

Mc Mehta v. Uoi case summary in slide format

1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (“Oleum Gas Leakage or Shriram Food and Fertilizer case”), (1987) I SCC 395

2. Brief Facts Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industry (SFFI) was engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, vanaspati soap, sodium sulphate etc. On 4 December 1985, a major leakage of oleum gas took place from one of the units of SFFI. The leakage affected a large number of persons- both amongst the workmen and public. Moreover, an advocate practising in the Tis- Hazari court died on account of inhalation of the oleum gas. The leakage occurred due to the bursting of a tank containing oleum gas as a result of the collapse of the structure on which it is mounted.

3. Remedial measures through invoking various laws Filing of a writ petition under Article 32 of COI for the violation of fundamental rights of Work-men and Citizens. Allowing the petitioner to appoint a committee to visit the caustic chlorine plant to ascertain whether the recommendations of Manmohan Committee (constituted in March 1985) were properly implemented or not. Appointment of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as an officer to receive and dispose of the claims for compensation cases. The action of District Magistrate ordering the closure of the industry under Section 133 of Cr.PC , and removal of the chemical gases to some safe place. The action of the inspector of factories, exercising his power under Section 40(2), Factories Act, 1948 prohibiting the Shriram industry from using caustic chlorine and sulphuric acid plant till adequate safety measures were adopted.

4. Directions By Hon’ble Court The court observed that the plant was set up some 35 years ago and now a sizeable population resides in the vicinity of the factory and therefore it is a risk or hazard to the large number of people. The recommendation of the Manmohan Committee must be implemented in toto to eliminate the possible risk or hazard before the industry is permitted to restart. While deciding the question of re-starting the plant, the court observed that the interest of 4000 workmen employed in it should not be ignored. The industry was also ordered to obtain the “consent order” from the Central Pollution Control Board under Section 25 , Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 21, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

5. Constitutional Issues that arose from the present Petition Scope and Ambit of the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32. The Court stated that “it may now be well settled that Article 32 does not merely confer power on the court to issue direction, order or writ for enforcement of the fundamental rights but it also lays down a constitutional obligation to protect the fundamental rights of the people and for that purpose this court has all the incidental and ancillary powers including the power to forge new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce fundamental rights. The court declared that the Horizon of Article 32 has been expanded by the court to “inject respect for human rights and social conscience in our corporate structure”.

6. Measure of liability of an enterprise engaged in hazardous and inherently dangerous substances The rule of Rylands v. Fletcher which was evolved in 1860 is not applicable to present day circumstances. The rule evolved in 19 th century at the time when all these development of science and technology had not taken place, cannot afford any guidance in evolving any standard of liability consistent with the constitutional norms and needs of the present day economic and social structure. Bhagwati J also declared: We no longer need the crutches of a foreign legal order. We in India, cannot hold our hands back and I venture to evolve new principles 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 on account of hazardous and inherently dangerous industry.

7. New Principle of Liability (Absolute Liability) 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 non-delegable 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, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm.