JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Faculty of Law

Project
Jurisprudence- II
The doctrine of Absolute liability & Right to a safe Environment

Submitted To:
Dr. Subhradipta Sarkar

Submitted By:
Khalida Khan & Shayan Zafar

BA.LLB(REGULAR) V Semester
Batch-2018-2023
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success and final outcome of this assignment required a lot of guidance and assistance from
many people and we are extremely privileged to have got this all along the completion of our
assignment. All that we have done as a team is only due to such supervision and assistance and
we would not forget to thank them.

We respect and thank Dr. Subhradipta Sarkar for providing us an opportunity to do this
assignment and work as a team and giving us all support and guidance, which made us complete
this assignment duly. We are extremely thankful to you sir for providing us such a nice support
and guidance.

--Khalida Khan and Shayan Zafar

 INDEX

 What is liability?
 Liability in the light of Analytical School of Jurisprudence.
 Absolute liability
 Jurisprudence behind the doctrine of Absolute liability.
 Difference between Ryland’s rule and M.C. Mehta’s rule
 Landmark Judgements
 Conclusion
 Bibliography
 Liability

Liability, as defined by Salmond, is the bond of necessity that exists between the “wrongdoer”
and the “remedy of the wrong”. It has more often been said to have contract or delict. It is the
result of a violation of the law.  Law lays down is down the right and duties on the
individual. The law awards legal rights to one individual and imposes the duty upon another
person. A person should not infringe is the legal right of others. If anybody violates the legal
right of another, he is said to have committed a wrong. If there is a wrong there is a liability.

Roman lawyers seem to have had some similar notion, and they tried to squeeze all liability
under those two expressions by adding to each class a number of things which did not properly
holding to it, which they called “quasi-contract ” and “quasi-delicit".

English lawyers seem to have kept up the distinction between contract and delict chiefly because
of the rule which one existed as to the joinder of actions; an important branch of that rule being
that causes of action arising on a breach of contract could not be joined with causes of action
arising on a delict. But there is a good deal of liability which is never considered as arising out
of either the one or the other, for instance, the liability of trustees or the liability of a person who
has used a ferry to pay the toll. Of course, it would be possible to extend the word "delict" so as
to cover any breaches of duty, but this extension has rarely been made. By “delicts" only certain
classes of breaches of duty are intended. English lawyers often called them torts.

According to Markby “the word liability is used to describe the condition of a person who has a
duty to perform ".

According to Austin, liability consists in those things which a wrongdoer must do or suffer. It is
the ultimatum of law and has its source in the supreme will of the state. Liability rises from a
breach of duty which may be in the form of an act or omission. Austin prefers to call liability as
"imputability". To quote him, “these certain forbearances, commissions or acts, together with
such of their consequences as it was the purpose of the duties to avert are imputable to the
persons who have forborne, omitted or acted. Or the plight or predicament of the persons, who
have forborne, omitted or acted, is styled imputability 1”. It is thus evident that liability arises
from a wrong or the breach of a duty in law.

1
V.D Mahajan, Jurisprudence & Legal Theory, (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow).
 Liability in the light of Analytical School of Jurisprudence

Till the beginning of the eighteenth century Natural Law School of Jurisprudence dominated the
juristic thought. Principle of Natural law school was considered to be supreme, super natural as it
was supposed to be derived from nature, super natural sources, justice, etc,. So the natural law
school dominated the man-made laws.

With the advancement of human in the mid eighteenth century the need of man-made laws were
observed. As the natural law school was not able to maintain the law and order in the society, to
remove the vagueness or the airy assumption in society, Analytical School or Positive School of
Jurisprudence emerged out.

Analytical School is also known as Austinian School since it is established by John Austin. It is
also called as Imperative School because it treats law as a command of sovereign. The purpose of
analytical jurisprudence is to analyze the first principles of law without reference either to their
historical origin or development or their validity. Another purpose is to gain an accurate and
intimate understanding of the fundamental working concepts of all legal reasoning.

The exponent of this school were neither concerned with the past nor with the future of law but
with the law as it exists, i.e. with law as it is (Positrum). John Austin and Salmond were some
of the major exponents of this school. According to Salmond law is the body of principles
recognised and applied by State in the administration of justice. He emphasized on the
importance of court to impart justice. According to him there is a bond that exists between the
wrongdoer and the remedy of wrong, with the help of law that wrongdoer is held liable for the
wrong which he committed. So he defines liability as the bond of necessity that exists between
the wrongdoer and the remedy of the wrong2.

According to Austin, law is the aggregate of the rules set by men as political superior or
sovereign to men as politically subject. His definition of law lays down precise boundaries
within which jurisprudence is to work. It completely applies to English law. According to him
positive law takes law as the command of the sovereign. It puts emphasis on legislation as the
source of law. It regards law as a closed system of pure facts from which all norms and values
are excluded. He prefers the term ‘imputability’ to liability. He defines liability as those certain

2
Dr. N. V Pranjape, Studies in Jurisprudence and Legal Theory, (Central Law Agency).
forbearances, commissions or acts, together with such of their consequences as it was the
purpose of the duties to avert are imputable to the persons who have forborne, omitted or acted.
Or the plight or predicament of the persons, who have forborne, omitted or acted, is styled
imputability.

Absolute Liability

Under Ryland case, the court declares it’s as Principle of “Strict Liability” rule. The Supreme
Court got the chance to make this principle when a petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India emerged into the form of PIL (Public Interest Litigation).

The rule of Absolute liability was laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the
case of M.C. Mehta v. UOI,3 and Bhopal Gas Leak case,4 where the Hon'ble Apex Court
maximized the limit of rule of Ryland v. Fletcher. The rule laid down by the SC is much wider
with respect to the rule laid down by House of Lords. By Explaining the rule of No fault liability
Blackburn J. said that "We think that the rule of the law is that the person who for his own
purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it
escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all
the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape."5

Absolute liability is a stricter form of strict liability. It refers to the no fault theory liability in
which the wrongdoer is held absolutely liable for the act of omission or commission without any
defences which are available to the rule of strict liability. It is applicable only to those people
who are involved in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity whereby they become absolutely
liable to full compensation for the harm caused to anyone resulting from the operation of such
hazardous activity. The rule of absolute liability was first laid down in M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India,6 the case is discussed below in detail.

Facts of the case: On 4th and 6th December, 1985 leakage of oleum gas from one of the units of
Shriram Foods and Fertilisers Industries in Delhi, belonging to Delhi Cloth Mill Ltd. In this

3
1987 SCR (1) 819.

4
AIR (1989) (1) SCC 674: AIR 1992 SC 248.
5
The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Part I by Bohlen, Francis H. (1911).
6
AIR 1987 SC 1086.
leakage one advocate practising in the Hazari Court had died and several others were affected. A
writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was brought by way of Public Interest
Litigation. The Supreme Court took a hard and holds decision holding that it was not bound to
follow the 19th Century rule of English Law, and it could evolve a rule which is suitable to
prevail in the Indian of social and economic at the present day. It evolved the rule of 'absolute
liability' as a part of Indian Law in preference to the rule of strict liability laid down in Ryland v.
Fletcher, Bhagwati, C.J. observed in this context – "This, rule ( Ryland v. Fletcher ) 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 norm and the needs of the present day economy and social structure. We do not
feel inhibited by this rule which was evolved in the context of a totally different kind of
economy. 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 this country. As new situations arise the
law has to be evolved in order to meet the challenge of such new situations. Law cannot allow
our judicial thinking to be constrained by reference of the law as it prevails in England or for the
matter of that in other foreign legal order. We in India cannot hold our hands back and I venture
to evolve a new principle of liability which English courts have not done." So Supreme Court
evolved a new rule creating absolute liability for harm caused by dangerous substance.

The rule laid down under this case was approved by Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of
India,7 where the court held that defendant has absolute liability for the act, he cannot escape by
saying that he took all the reasonable care on behalf of his part.

Yet in another case of Indian Council for Environmental Legal Action v. Union of India,8 the
court held that “Once the event is carried related to hazardous substance then is liable to take all
the loss caused to another person irrespective of taking reasonable care while carrying out the
activity.

According to the rule of absolute liability, if any person is engaged in an inherently dangerous or
hazardous activity, and if any harm is caused to any person due to any accident which occurred

7
AIR 1990 SC 1480.

8
AIR 1996 SC 1446.
during carrying out such inherently dangerous and hazardous activity, then the person who is
carrying out such activity will be held absolutely liable. The exception to the strict liability rule
also wouldn’t be considered. The rule laid down in the case of MC Mehta v UOI was also
followed by the Supreme Court while deciding the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. To ensure
that victims of such accidents get quick relief through insurance, the Indian Legislature passed
the Public Liability Insurance Act in the year 1991.

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991[7]

This act was introduced with the aim of providing immediate relief to people who are victims of
accidents in which handling of hazardous substances is involved. The main focus of the Act is to
create a public liability insurance fund which can be used to compensate the victims.

The Act states that any person who is carrying out inherently dangerous or hazardous activities
should have insurances and policies in place where he will be insured against liability to provide
compensation to the victims in case any accident takes place, and some injury occurs. This
liability is based on the principle of “no fault liability” or in other words, the rule of strict
liability and absolute liability. Inherently dangerous or hazardous substance covers under its
scope any mixture, preparation or substance which because of its properties can cause serious
harm to human beings, animals, plants, property or the environment. If any substance is
inherently dangerous or hazardous due to its handling also, then also the absolute liability of the
defendant arises.

Jurisprudence behind the Doctrine of Absolute Liability

In the M.C. Mehta v. UOI case, Justice Bhagwati opined that it is unjust to deal with cases of 21 st
century with a law that dates back to 19th century, a time when the industrial revolution was just
taking off. In his opinion, the law wasn’t well suited to deal with industrial giants of present day
who were involved in wrongdoings way beyond what the Doctrine of Strict Liability could have
foreseen and thus, when any defence is made available to them, it is nothing but a loophole in the
legal system and an injustice is committed against those who are affected by the wrongdoing.

Being absolutely liable makes the party anticipate for the worst, even if it is highly unlikely so
that possibility of occurring any mishap is reduced to zero9.
9
Dr. B.N Mani Tripathi, Jurisprudence: Legal Theory, (Allahabad Law Agency, Allahabad).
 The old Rule was inappropriate in Indian Perspective High Industrialisation Growth the Indian
economy is highly developing economy. The Rule of strict liability is very old one and it was
evaluated when there was very low industrial development so this rule cannot be found
appropriate in highly growing economy like India. In India the land is mostly used for
agriculture. Therefore, it is appropriate to store the water in big tank for the purpose of irrigation.
The same thing does not prevail in the country from which it decided. Therefore, it does not fit in
Indian perspective. The rule was given in 19th century, about more than one 150 years ago, when
the social and economical condition was totally different. Therefore, it was necessary to make
rule as per present requirement.

Difference between Rylands Rule and M.C. Metha's rule:

First on the basis of conditions, The Ryland's rule requires three conditions for its application
they are dangerous thing, escape and non-natural use of land where as The M.C. Mehta's rule is
not dependant on these conditions, however, it deals with dangerous things.

Second on the basis of escape of thing from the premises, The Ryland's rule does not cover the
cases where harm is caused to persons within the premises as the rule requires escape of thing,
which causes harm, from the premises whereas the escape of thing from the premises is not a
necessary condition for on the basis of as no distinction is made between persons within the
premises, where the enterprise is carried on and persons outside the premises10.

Third on the basis of liability, the liability of the person according to the Ryland's rule is not
absolute as it is subject to many exceptions for example, act of third party, vis major, etc. The
liability is not dependant on the negligence on the part of the defendant. It is called the rule of
Strict Liability whereas in M.C. Mehta's rule the owner of the industry would be liable even if
the damage is caused due to the act of a stranger. M.C. Mehta's rule provides for absolute
liability and not only strict liability. It is not subject to any exception. It provides for stricter than
strict liability. It is called the rule of 'Absolute Liability'.

Fourth on the basis of exceptions, Ryland's rule is subjected to many exceptions such as
plaintiffs own act, act of stranger, statutory authority, act of God and the act with the consent of
plaintiff whereas M.C. Mehta's rule is not subjected to any exception.

10
Dr. R. K Bangia, Law of Torts, (Allahabad Law Agency).
Fifth on the basis of damages, Damages awarded under Ryland's rule are ordinary or
compensatory whereas Under M.C. Mehta's rule the court can award exemplary damages. The
quantum of compensation depends upon the size of the enterprise. The larger the enterprise, the
greater would be the amount of compensation payable.

Other Landmark judgements delivered by the Supreme Court on the basis of principle of
absolute liability:

 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case i.e., Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India,11

Facts of the case: Bhopal Gas tragedy, up till this day remains one of the world’s worst industrial
disasters. It occurred between 2 and 3 December, 1984 in the city of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
This tragedy took place because of leakage of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas from the Union
Carbide India Ltd. (UCIL) plant which manufactured pesticides. It is alleged that the accident
occurred because most of the safety measure systems were not functioning and those which were
functioning, were in a condition too poor to avert the mishap. The toxic gas release engulfed the
entire city and caused death of approx. 4000 people and nearly 1.5 lakhs were injured.

In February 1985, the Indian Government filed a case in the U.S. Supreme Court claiming $3.3
billion from UCIL. But the case was transferred to India in 1986 on the grounds of forum non
conveniens. In the meantime, in 1985 Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act was
passed to empower the Central Government to be the sole representative of the victims for
speedy justice. But instead of following the procedure of law, an out of court settlement deal
took place between GOI and UCIL for full and final settlement of $740 million. It also limited
liability of UCIL for all civil and criminal claims. This deal was widely criticized and a number
of review petitions were filed at the Supreme Court to question the validity of the settlement
order. The order was criticized because the compensation settled was too less for all the victims
and absence of re-opener clause would prevent any future claim against UCIL. In the judgment
delivered on October 3, 1991, all these contentions were rejected by the Supreme Court by
upholding the validity of the settlement order except the clause quashing criminal proceedings.

11
4 SCC 548 (1991).
One of the main issues which this tragedy took place was the issue of absolute liability. Being
absolutely liable makes the party anticipate for the worst, even if it is highly unlikely so that
possibility of occurring any mishap is reduced to zero. Even if the company keeps its stand of
taking all necessary precautions, responsibility still lies on them. This principle, if applied
accordingly, would not have only created deterrence amongst companies for taking full proof
measures against any unforeseen event but would also make them fully liable for the accident if
caused. If not for the settlement order, then according to this principle, UCIL would have been
answerable for the sufferings of every single victim of this tragedy and would also have to be
compelled to provide the necessary and adequate compensation thus satisfying the notion of
proportionate justice. Understanding this principle, it was applied in the M.C. Mehta Case. Thus,
it can be said that the principle of Absolute liability evolved in India primarily because of the
awakening created by the Bhopal Gas leak Tragedy and Oleum Gas Case.

 Uphaar Cinema Case i.e., Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v. UOI,12

A fire had broken out in the Uphaar Cinema located in South Delhi during the screening of the
movie Border, on 13th of June 1997, due to faulty wire connections. It caused death of 59 people
and injured 100. The fire was caused when bigger of the two installed transformers caught fire.
These transformers had developed issues repeatedly but no proper repair work was conducted
because of the loose connection, sparking happened which led to a massive fire. Illegal
extensions and additional seats added more to the chaos.

It was held that even if there was no negligence but it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court
that there were statutory violations of the safety standards by the authorities, and then these
violations will be sufficient for the court to hold the Respondents liable for compensation to the
victims of the unfortunate incident and also for damages. Moreover, as the installation of the
transformer was a non-natural use, the rule of both strict and absolute liability will be applicable.
It is a hazardous object which always carries a danger of short circuit.

 Mushtaq Ahmed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir13

The state was negligent in maintaining electricity wire and the victim died due to electric shock.
The court held that state being engaged in undertaking the activity of electricity supply, is liable
12
ACC 114 (2003).
13
AIR 2009 J and K 29.
under the law of torts to compensate the petitioners for the death of the victim irrespective of any
negligence or carelessness on their part.

Prior to conclusion of this section a very recent case needs to be discussed in here, which is of
Vizag Gas leak case i.e., L.g Polymers India Pvt. Ltd., v. Andhra Pradesh, in this case an
accident occurred in the evening of 8th May 2020 in the LG Polymers chemical plant which is
situated in a village in the outskirts of Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Due to the technical
glitch in the computer, which maintained the temperature of the styrene monomer exceeded the
safe temperature levels and lead to vaporize the gas. Around 11 people died and around 30 were
in severe condition. And 1,000 were said to be exposed to the gas.

A petition was filed in National Green Tribunal and it ordered LG Polymers to deposit 50 crores
with the District Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam. The NGT observed in the order that the situation
attracted the principle of strict liability and awarded the compensation as the relief to the victims.

Strict liability principle was held in both of the above case, although the principle so used was
not of absolute liability, but the compensation provided by court was in accordance with it. This
part of the project being of great importance as to it helped us to determine the very existence of
principle of absolute liability, we can see that to an extent the judiciary in India has recognized
the principle and clearly stated the principle is not merely an obiter dicta but suits to the current
situations in the country.

Absolute Liability can also be upheld by the courts in case of a single death without any mass
destruction of property or pollution of the environment:

 Klaus Mittelbachert vs. East India Hotels Ltd.,14

In this case, the plaintiff, a German co-pilot suffered grave injuries after diving into the
swimming pool of the five-star restaurant. Upon investigation, it was seen that the pool was
defectively designed and had insufficient amount of water as well. The pilot's injuries left him
paralyzed leading to death after 13 years of the accident. The court held that five-star hotels that
charge hefty amounts owe a high degree of care to its guests. This was violated by Hotel Oberoi
Intercontinental, New Delhi when the defectively designed swimming pool left a man dead. This
made the hotel absolutely liable for payment of damages. The hefty amounts taken from the
14
AIR 1997 Delhi 201.
guests by the hotel owners guaranteed them to pay exemplary damages to the deceased or in any
such further cases. It was decided that the plaintiff would receive Rs. 50 lakhs for the accident
caused.

However, with the death of the plaintiff while the suit was still pending in the court, the cause of
action also died and the aforesaid decision was reversed on appeal by the defendant party.

Conclusion:

The principle that came up from these historical cases was the Principle of Absolute Liability.
The judgment of M. C. Mehta case gave a new dimension to the Laws in India. Before this case
the principle of strict liability was applicable where the defendant could take the plea of
defenses, but with this ruling of the Supreme Court the Absolute principle came up.

The right to a safe environment must never be diluted for the ease of doing business or
generation of profits. It is high time that we realize the significance of Environmental and labor
laws which are responsible for holding the accountability of the offender in case of an industrial
accident. We cannot exploit the oppressed class in the name of employment and development
just because they voluntarily agree to be a part of the workforce. The handling and
manufacturing of hazardous substances must bring with it an additional duty of care to the
workers. In a developing nation like India, we must not forget our responsibility to protect the
major workforce from such industrial accidents like the Bhopal Gas tragedy. The Bhopal gas
tragedy was indeed one of the most grievous and grim accident which our country faced. Even to
this day, victims have not been able to lead a peaceful life for the fact that they miserably failed
in obtaining their just compensation.

In the recent Vizag gas leak incident, it is essential to view it under purview of Article 21 of the
constitution. Though it can be contested and argued that while drafting the constitution, the
founding fathers didn’t necessarily intend Article 21 to take into consideration the ‘Right to Safe
Environment’ of an individual, but the very essence of the Constitution of India lies in the fact
that our constitution is both, a mixture of rigid and flexible tendencies and thus, the highest
interpreter of the constitution, namely, the Supreme Court can interpret the constitution in
accordance to what the society demands as time passes. Thus, there is no lack of jurisprudence
on the varied interpretations of the scope of Article 21 and whether or not it should cover the
Right to Safe Environment. The philosophy behind considering Right to Safe Environment
under the ambit of Article 21 is that ‘Right to Life’ shouldn’t be interpreted in the terms of bare-
bones, basic-subsistence level survival, rather, it needs to cover everything that a man needs for
the satisfaction of his being and to ensure a dignified life.

The Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is a
fundamental right and includes the rights to free water and free air from pollution for the full
enjoyment of life in the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar 15. Thus, according to this
doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court, an individual might seek redressal in case his right to a
healthy environment is hampered in any way or form, pertaining to the leakage of any toxicant
from industrial outlets.

While decades have passed since the doctrine came into existence, its implementation is still as
necessary as ever and this doctrine has helped the court of law serve justice in cases similar to
the case of industrial irresponsibility in the Oleum Gas Leak case.

Actually, in the light of the Vizag Gas Leak Tragedy, while the NGT has found prima facie
liable under strict liability, jurists agree that absolute liability would have been a better concept
to be used because the NGT back in 2010 accepted 'wholeheartedly' the applicability of the
absolute liability doctrine. Thus, there is a need for more recognition of concept of absolute
liability in India.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

S. NO. BOOKS REFERRED AUTHOR

15
AIR 1991 SC 420.
01. JURISPRUDENCE & LEGAL THEORY V. D. MAHAJAN
02. JURISPRUDENCE: LEGAL THEORY Dr. B.N MANI TRIPATHI
03. STUDIES IN JURISPRUDENCE & LEGAL THEORY Dr. N.V PRANJAPE
04. LAW OF TORTS Dr. R.K BANGIA