STUDYING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE

OF STRICT LIABILITY IN THE INDIAN PERSPECTIVE.

DAKSHA GOLE,
Student at NMIMS School of Law, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Email Id: dakshagole@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
It is common knowledge that liability is an essential component of human society, and it
is also widely known that rights are always followed by liabilities; consequently, if there
were no liability in our society, the cohesion of our society would also end up losing its
force, and individuals just wouldn't care about or give worth to the rights of others. To be
liable is to be responsible for an offence and to be subject to the state's prescribed
punishment for that offence. When a person studying or practising law thinks of liability,
there are 2 most popular principles that come to their mind 1]Strict Liability and
2]Absolute Liability. This research papers aims to study the development of the principle
of strict liability in India.

KEYWORDS
Strict liability, Absolute liability, compensation, exceptions.

1
INTRODUCTION
The famous case of Rylands v. Fletcher established the notion of strict liability, which is
currently extensively explored in tort law. There is no better way to delve deeply into the
history and origins of a legal principle than to examine the evolution of the idea of "strict
liability." Sometime later, a stricter theory known as "absolute liability" was developed
with this idea as a basis. The infamous M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case established the
notion of absolute liability. This legal concept originated in Indian jurisprudence and is
currently the subject of research in several countries. While strict liability and the law of
absolute liability share some similarities, there are also key distinctions between the two. 

I. Objectives of this research

This research aims to understand the process of development of the concept of
strict liability into absolute liability. It looks at both the principles in depth and
learns the relationship of dependency between them. What were the reasons
suggested by the Indian judiciary, that went behind the replacement of strict
liability by absolute liability are mentioned in this research. What are the
differences and the scope of both these principles are discussed too. The main
objective is to study the entire background and relevancy of both these concepts.

II. Hypothesis
When the principle of strict liability is put forth, people may escape liability in
cases of grave nature where necessary compensation is required to give to the
victims. People owning hazardous industries which surrounded densely populated
land could take the defence of the Rylands rule and break free of the liability.

2
III. Research questions
a) What were the reasons for giving away the old Ryland’s rule in India and
what was the Indian Judiciary’s view of it?
b) What are the differences between these two principles and what are their
scope?

IV. Research Methodology

The present research is strictly relied on a doctrinal method. There is an extensive
use of secondary data. Secondary data includes the use of various research paper
and articles. A lot of websites having articles with similar titles were also of great
help. Various case laws were studied during the preparation of this research paper.
The internet has also been a great source for retrieving information on various
terms of importance.

3
BACKGROUND

What exactly is the principle of strict liability?

Simply stated the rule of Strict Liability makes the defendant liable for accidental harms
caused without any intention and negligence on their part. In other words, sometimes the
law recognizes ‘no fault’ liability. The undertakers of hazardous or dangerous activities
have to compensate for the damages caused irrespective of any carelessness on their part.
(Jain, 2016)1. However, this principle does have some exceptions, using which the
defendant can escape liability.

 Plaintiff’s own fault

 Act of God or Vis Major
 Act of third party
 Consent of the plaintiff
 Statutory authority

If these defences are applicable to the defendant’s case, then no liability arises.

Strict Liability in the Indian Perspective. What was the Judiciary’s Point of View?

The rule of Strict Liability led to numerous exceptions; thus, essentially very little rule
survived. As the old norm was subject to numerous exceptions, no one could be held
strictly accountable for negligence. Therefore, a stricter rule was judged which was
essential for the same reason.

By observing the need to modify the 19th century rule of Strict Liability the Supreme
court of India in M.C. Mehta case said that “Moreover the principle so established in
Ryland v Fletcher of strict liability cannot be used in the modern era, as the very principle
was evolved in 19th century, and in the period when the industrial revolution in India has
just begun, this two-century old principle of tortuous liability cannot be taken as it is in
the modern world without modifications” (LawBhoomi, 2022)2

1
Jain, A.K. (2016) Law of torts. 8th edn. Delhi, New Delhi: Ascent publications (4). Available at:
https://pdfcoffee.com/qdownload/a-k-jain-law-of-tortsdoc-pdf-free.html (Accessed: November 6, 2022).

2
LawBhoomi (2022) Absolute liability: The rule of strict liability in Indian perspective, LawBhoomi.
Available at: https://lawbhoomi.com/absolute-liability-the-rule-of-strict-liability-in-indian-perspective/
(Accessed: November 6, 2022).

4
It was also asserted by Justice Bhagwati that the principle of strict liability was developed
in the 19th century, when industrial development was in its infancy. In the new
manufacturing era of the 21st century, when hazardous or inherently dangerous industries
are required to carry out development programmes, this outdated rule is no longer
applicable. In addition, individuals should not feel constrained by this law, which arose in
the setting of an entirely different social and economic framework. In the case of K.
Nagireddi v. Union of India, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
stressed the necessity to modify the ancient theory, stating, "In India, the broad rule of
Ryland v. Fletcher is accepted, but the principle must be adjusted in its application to the
Indian context." (Gupta, 2020)3

This old rule was also very irrelevant in the rapidly developing India due to the growth in
the industry sectors. Industrialization was happening in a very swift manner and people
were using huge acres of land to build these industries. On these lands, there were
storages of various hazardous and lethal substances, and if were to be leaked would lead
to manifolds of damage. This damage would not only be to the people living near these
industrial plants but also to the environment, as the quality of it would be deteriorated.
Thus, in such cases where there are such grave consequences liability must be placed on
the owner of such industries.

A comparison between the principle of strict liability and absolute liability

Firstly, we must understand what exactly absolute liability is. According to the Absolute
Liability rule, a business is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all the people who
are harmed, as a result of an accident in the operation of a hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity in which the business has engaged. (saxenaparkhi97, 2019)4 This rule
was not recognized previously by any other courts of law and the Supreme Court of India
in the year 1987 introduced it in the case of MC Mehta vs. UOI. Reference for this rule
was taken from the principle of strict liability. Absolute liability has no exceptions
whatsoever and the defendant cannot escape liability. For example, in the Rylands rule if
the substance escapes due to the act of a third party, the defendant is not liable. However,

3
Gupta, P. (2020) Emergence of absolute liability vis-à-vis the principle of strict liability, ILSIJLM. Available
at: https://ilsijlm.indianlegalsolution.com/emergence-of-absolute-liability-vis-a-vis-the-principle-of-strict-
liability-prachi-gupta/ (Accessed: November 6, 2022).

4
saxenaparkhi97 (2019) Absolute liability in Indian context, Legal Articles in India. Available at:
https://www.legalservicesindia.com/law/article/1236/5/Absolute-Liability-In-Indian-Context?
id=1236&u=5 (Accessed: November 6, 2022).

5
if they are sued under the rule of Absolute liability, they are definitely liable and are
required to pay compensation to the injured parties.

Differences between strict liability and absolute liability

I. To trigger the Rylands rule, a landowner must engage in an activity that is not
natural to the land and allow a damaging substance to escape from the property.
The Mehta Rule does not rely on these kinds of assumptions.
II. The law of absolute liability will apply to people who are hurt both on and off the
property, as the departure of a harmful thing from one's own land is not deemed
an essential.
III. Thirdly, exceptions are not considered under the Absolute Liability rule, although
some are under the Strict Liability rule.
IV. The damages awarded during the case of strict liability will be ordinary or
compensatory whereas in the case of absolute liability the court might demand
exemplary damages. If the industry is a thriving and booming one, the court will
ask for additional compensatory amount than it would ask for usually.

CASE LAWS

6
Rylands vs Fletcher [1868]

The case of Rylands v. Fletcher in England is where the concept of strict responsibility
first arose. The mill in this case relies on water supplied by a reservoir built by the
defendant on his property. He had no idea that abandoned mineshafts were located close
to the reservoir. The coalmines owned by the plaintiff on the adjacent area were flooded
as water suddenly gushed through the reservoir and into the abandoned mineshafts.
Neither the defendant nor the third-party workers were found to be at fault for the
incident.

To solve this dilemma, wherein the damage has been caused by an act of the defendant
but they have not breached any duty the court laid down the principle of ‘strict liability’.
The principle laid down by the court is as follows: “If a person brings a potentially
dangerous thing on his land, and if such a thing escapes and does damage then such
person should be held responsible, even if he were not negligent.” In this case, the huge
reservoir was said to be the potentially dangerous thing. (Indian Contract Act 1970)5

MC Mehta vs Union of India [1987]

In this case, several persons were hurt when Oleum gas leaked from one of Sriram
Industries' operations in Delhi. By developing a new law that imposes absolute
accountability for harm caused by hazardous enterprises, India's Supreme Court
went beyond the notion of strict liability. If the motive for the action was financial gain,
and if the business is the only one in a position to foresee and prevent any resulting
injury, then the business has no defence against liability.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

5
A. (1970) Indian Contract Act, August 2013. Available at:
https://indiancontractactnotes.blogspot.com/2013/08 (Accessed: November 6, 2022).

7
Both these rules, were very much of relevancy back in their times. In today’s time they
are relevant too, but it is interesting to witness how a law can be amended according to
the conditions of a particular country. As India was growing its industries, it felt the need
to introduce a stringent rule that imposed liability on people who caused havoc. Bhopal
Gas tragedy is a very good example of such a havoc, which gave rise to this rule of
absolutely making the wrongdoer liable. The victims of this tragedy and their families are
still facing the terrible consequences of this disaster. Back in 1989, only a compensation
of Rs.1 lakh was given by the Union Carbide Corporation for per death. This
compensation was not inadequate in comparison to the injury caused, but it also
disregarded the fact that so many people suffered by such a great disaster. Nevertheless,
the victims are still demanding for additional compensation but to no avail. From my
personal standpoint, speedy compensation should be given to the people who suffer from
such incidents, that happen on such a large scale. If people are given the compensation
quickly, it might help them to take some aid swiftly and reduce further effects. The
compensation will never bring back someone they lost, but might help them to deal with
the destruction a little better.

REFERENCES:

8
1. LawBhoomi (2022) Absolute liability: The rule of strict liability in Indian
perspective, LawBhoomi. Available at: https://lawbhoomi.com/absolute-liability-
the-rule-of-strict-liability-in-indian-perspective/ (Accessed: November 6, 2022).
2. Jain, A.K. (2016) Law of torts. 8th edn. Delhi, New Delhi: Ascent publications
(4). Available at: https://pdfcoffee.com/qdownload/a-k-jain-law-of-tortsdoc-pdf-
free.html (Accessed: November 6, 2022).
3. saxenaparkhi97 (2019) Absolute liability in Indian context, Legal Articles in
India. Available at:
https://www.legalservicesindia.com/law/article/1236/5/Absolute-Liability-In-
Indian-Context?id=1236&u=5 (Accessed: November 6, 2022).
4. Anonymous (1970) Indian Contract Act, August 2013. Available at:
https://indiancontractactnotes.blogspot.com/2013/08 (Accessed: November 6,
2022).
5. Gupta, P. (2020) Emergence of absolute liability vis-à-vis the principle of strict
liability, ILSIJLM. Available at:
https://ilsijlm.indianlegalsolution.com/emergence-of-absolute-liability-vis-a-vis-
the-principle-of-strict-liability-prachi-gupta/ (Accessed: November 6, 2022).
6. Absolute Liability: The Rule of Strict Liability in Indian Perspective (2021)
LexCliq. Available at: https://lexcliq.com/absolute-liability-the-rule-of-strict-
liability-in-indian-perspective/ (Accessed: November 6, 2022).
7. Francis, A. (2014) Why are Bhopal survivors still fighting for compensation?,
BBC News. BBC. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-
30205140 (Accessed: November 6, 2022).
8. Pratidin Time (2022) Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Centre tells Sc it will pursue added
compensation to victims, Pratidin Time. Available at:
https://www.pratidintime.com/national/bhopal-gas-tragedy-centre-tells-sc-it-will-
pursue-added-compensation-to-victims (Accessed: November 6, 2022).

9. Bieber, C. (2022) Strict liability: Legal definition & examples, Forbes.

Forbes Magazine. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-

9
injury/strict-liability/#:~:text=Strict%20liability%20is%20also%20called
%20absolute%20liability.%20It,compensate%20injured%20victims%20in%20a
%20personal%20injury%20claim. (Accessed: November 6, 2022).

10