ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (1986)

M.C. MEHTA & ANR.ETC. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

______________________________________________________________________________
Appellant: M.C. MEHTA
Versus
Respondent: UNION OF INDIA

INTRODUCTION :
Indian government has initiated the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT IN 1986 to
regulate many acts and laws to ensure the protection of our environment. It contain 26 sections
and the purpose of the act is to implement the decision of the UNITED NATIONS
CONFERENCE on the Human Environment. This act is also known as UMBRELLA ACT
because it provides the framework to the central government in order to make the coordination
between different state as well as the central authorities using different act like water act, air act,
biological diversity. The main objective of this act is to prevent and protect the environment and
ensure the bright healthy future .The environmental protection act have a two main concepts
were protection and improvement of environment.

CASE BACKGROUND
PARTIES
Petitioner: M.C. Mehta.
Respondent: Union of India and ors.

JUDGES: CHIEF JUSTICE BHAGWATI

SUMMARY OF THE CASE:

This case is originated in the aftermath of Oleum gas leak from Shriram food fertilizers ltd.,
complex at Delhi. This gas leak occurred soon after the infamous Bhopal gas leak and created
lot of panic in Delhi. One person died in the incident and few were hospitalized. The case lays
down the principle of absolute liability and the concept of deep pockets. 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. 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.

Legal provisions:

PIL under Article 21 and 32 of the constitution and sought closure and relocation of the Shriram
Caustic chlorine and Sulphuric Acid plant which was located in thickly populated area of Delhi
Under section 3(3) in Environmental protection act 1986.
Absolute liability.
No fault liability.
ISSUES RAISED :
1. Whether such hazardous industries to be allowed to operate in such areas
2. If they are allowed to work in such areas, whether any regulating mechanism be evolved.
3. Liability and amount of compensation how to be determined
CRUX JUDGEMENT:

For the leakage of the hazardous substances ,that the industry cannot be banned because the
industries as it is the one help to the development of the quality of the people .This industry
supplying chlorine to DELHI WATER SUPPLU UNDERTAKING used for the drinkilng water.
Hereafter these kind of industries should not placed in such place.
DUTY:
The duty of the industry to take further measures to handle such hazardous substances. And the
government also provide great care for the industries in such use of material in such area.
BREACH:
The right to liberty is violated by this incident ,the negligence and duty of care were breached
here.
CAUSE:
 As the duty of care for the toxic substance is much expected than other substance. The
negligence here created the leakage of toxic gas.
HARM:
Due to the leakage of such toxic substance in the industry a death of one person and the great
panic aroused here.
DAMAGES:
The damages for the injury of the work man and people affected by gas leakage in 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 living public in the vicinity.
DETAILED COMMENTRY ON ISSUES:
As for this leakage of gas issue the court must be banned the industry, but the consideration
of4000 workers in that and it may be added fuel to the fire so verdict was fine . The government
produce a law to manage the location of such industry which produce the hazardous toxic
substances.
But the court give such conditions:
 Ordered the Central Pollution Control Board to inspect whether the industry followed the
Air Act and Water Act.
 Every industries should provide the safety measures to the workers.
 Industry should publish the chlorine and its appropriate treatment if again the gas
leakage occur.
 Industries must provide loud speaker to announce the event of any leakage.
 Workers should provided by masks and belts.
 The chairman DCM Limited personally responsible for compensation for the injured
people and the worker’s family
CONCLUSION:
The quantum of compensation was determined by the district judge, Delhi. It also shows that
court made the industry “absolute liable” and compensation to be paid when injury was proved
without requiring the industry to the present in the case.
Thus the court applied the principle of No fault liability in this case.
SIMILAR JUDGEMENTS:

1. K.G. SATHYANARAAYAN V.BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION.

2. P.P.L. FACTORY V. MANGILAL (1999)

3.S.P. GUPTA V.PRESIDENT OF INDIA(1989)