Rule of Absolute Liability

The Supreme Court applied a stricter version of the rule of strict liability in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India
(1987). In this case, harmful Oleum gas had escaped from a factory owned by Shriram Foods & Fertilizer Industries.
The gas had caused a lot of damage to people and industries nearby.
The Supreme Court held that, despite being so stringent, the strict liability rule was inadequate in modern times. This
is because scientific advancements have made modern industries even more dangerous and hazardous. Hence, the
court laid down the absolute liability rule in this case.
According to the absolute liability rule, no exceptions of strict liability shall apply in certain cases. Therefore, the
people who cause damage will have unlimited liability to compensate victims adequately. Courts in India have
applied this rule in many cases to create deterrence.
Absolute Liability
Absolute Liability (based on no-fault liability )evolved in India in the MC Mehta v. UoI Case which is also
known as the Oleum Gas Leak Case. The judgement of the case came at a time when the country was coming to
terms with the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
The judgement in this case can be said to be influenced by the tragedy in a way that it decided to hold big
corporations liable for their actions and consequential accidents. In this case, SC was dealing with the leak of
oleum gas from an unit of Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer. The leakage was caused by bursting of a tank that was
storing the gas and its escape resulted in a lot of damages. Within a period of 1 year, this was the 2nd case of
large scale leakage of deadly gas. Supreme Court did not follow strict liability in this case and evolved absolute
liability which is not subject to any exceptions at all.
The Supreme Court considered strict liability insufficient to protect citizens’ rights in a developed economy
such as India thereby substituting it with the ‘absolute liability principle’. The Supreme Court also designated
itself as the protector of the environment and added under Article 21 the right to a pollution-free and safe life.
Essential elements of Absolute Liability
Absolute Liability is just Strict Liability without any exceptions.
 Dangerous thing: The substance must be dangerous or have the power to be potentially destructive and be
under the control of someone to hold them liable.
 Escape of dangerous thing from land: The dangerous material must escape to endanger a victim and establish
absolute liability.
 Non-natural use of land: Use of land in a manner that is not natural. For example, use of land to grow trees is
natural, growing poisonous trees is not.
 Mischief: The plaintiff must demonstrate that dangerous material has escaped and caused damages.
Defences available against Absolute Liability
No defences are available against Absolute Liability. No exceptions of Strict Liability apply in this case either.
Therefore, the people who cause damage in this situation have unlimited liability to compensate victims
adequately. In the case of Strict Liability, the wrongdoer has to pay compensation per the damage that has been
caused while in Absolute Liability the quantum of damages is dependent on the capability of the wrongdoer.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Union Carbide Corporation vs Union of India
In Bhopal a factory, gas leaked and people killed and injured.
SC ordered a higher amount of compension but UCC filed petition and SC lower the compensatoin. UCC taken
defenses.
Gas leak hoi, applied strict liability
MC Mehta : Shriram gas leak, Oleum gas leak, near tis hazari court In the case of Rylands vs. Fletcher , this
provision was laid down and thus this rule is often referred to as “Rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher”, but the rule of
absolute liability was laid down for a number of exceptions given for in this rule. In the case of M.C. Mehta vs.
Union of India , the Supreme Court of India found that the offence should not be defended, but the defendant is
responsible for the act. As part of law of torts, strict liability and absolute liability shall be defined. These two
have the similar significance with some differences. Strict liability determines that one must be responsible for
the damages incurred by the use of hazardous objects, the escape, and the un-natural use of the soil, with some
exceptions. Absolute responsibility is without question a broader sense of this responsibility. It states that even
if he has taken charge of his land, an individual is liable to pay for injury. As specified in the case of strict
liability, he cannot take any defences.
Facts
On 4th December 1985, an occurrence of a major spillage of oleum gas happened from one of the units of
Shriram. The spillage physically influenced numerous common open – both the laborers as well as common
individual’s exterior.
Additionally, an advocate honing within the Tis Hazari Court passed on after breathing in oleum gas. The
occurrence was affirmed by both the applicant and the Delhi Bar Association. After two days, another minor
spillage of oleum gas took out from the joints of a pipe on 6th December.
Due to the ensuing two episodes of oleum gas spillage, the Delhi administration quickly reacted by issuing an
arrange under Section 133(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which coordinated Shriram to require the
taking after steps:
To halt utilizing hurtful chemicals and gasses within the unit inside two days.
Evacuate the said chemicals to a safer place inside seven days and not keep or store the chemicals within the
same put where the calamity happened once more.
Or, to appear within the Court of District Magistrate, Delhi to appear cause for the non-enforceability of the
specified arrangement on 17th December 1985.
On the following day, both the above-mentioned summons petitions came up for hearing within the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court too took cognizance of the over-arrangement by the District Magistrate and famously
said that due to the “inadequacies”, it isn’t conceivable to require the steps critically.
Issues
What is the scope of Article 32 of the constitution?
Whether Strict Liability Principle should be followed?
Arguments From Appellant Side
The appellant argued that the industries engaged in hazardous activities should be held to an absolute standard
of absolute liability for any harm caused by their operations and not by principle of strict liability.
It was contended that the principle of strict liability established in Rylands v Fletcher was insufficient to protect
the public from the dangers posed by modern industrial activities. Mehta emphasized the need for a more
stringent standard that would compel such industries to bear full responsibility and to adopt the highest safety
measure for any accidents.
Arguments From Respondents Side
The principle of strict liability was initially argued by both parties i.e. Union of India and Sriram Food Fertilizer
Industries. It was contended that the principle stated above had some exceptions which was sufficient to address
issues of industrial accidents. The respondents suggested that it might discourage industrial growth and
development if absolute liability on industries is imposed.
Judgement Of The Case
The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution as a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme
Court of India. On 20th December 1986 judgment was passed by the 14th Chief Justice of India Justice PN
Bhagwati.
The court moved beyond the strict liability principle and established principle of Absolute liability for industries
engaged in hazardous word activities. It was held that these industries should bear the absolute and non-
delegated duty to ensure the safety of the community with no exceptions allowed.
Analysis
The Supreme Court managed with different lawful issues within the two judgements passed individually on 17th
February and 20th December, 1986.The primary judgment examined the scope of open intrigued case within the
region of natural laws and for the most part managed with:
Whether the Incomparable Court had the specialist beneath Article 32 to choose Shriram to restart its caustic
chlorine plant?
What are the fundamental conditions to be fulfilled in order to run a mechanical unit in an intensely populated
region?
The choice of structure of Environmental Courts in India territorially.
The constitutionally imperative questions were talked about in detail within the last judgment. The legal issues
tended to in that are as takes after:
Whether the ward and specialist of the Supreme Court beneath Article 32 can be expanded?
Whether applications for compensations to casualties are viable beneath the said Article?
Whether Shriram falls beneath “other authorities” as specified in Article 12?
Whether the correct to life under Article 21 is accessible against a private enterprise like Shriram?
On the off chance that a letter tended to any person judge is viable as open intrigued case. What is the risk of
any perilous industry in case of a mischance?
Whether the concept of strict obligation established within the case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) appropriate in
such a circumstance? What ought to be the sum of stipend within the case of a mischance happening due to a
dangerous industry?
Whether an unused legitimate guideline can be developed in case fundamental where the existing legitimate
standards are not appropriate. In conclusion, whether the Supreme Court of India is bound to take after the
choices laid down in remote case laws.
The final decision by the Supreme Court was to allow Shriram authorization to revive the specified plant. In
spite of the fact that the prior two orders passed by the Inspector and Assistant Commissioner of production
lines dated 7th and 24th December, 1985 were not cleared, both the orders were suspended.
The Court gave brief consent to run the plant and set ten conditions to entirely take after, together with fines.
The Court too specified that disappointment to preserve the conditions would result within the cancellation of
the authorization allowed by the Court.
 Conclusion
Since of the open intrigued case, an industry, for the primary time in Indian legitimate history, was held
completely obligated for a mischance and was required to pay a huge entirety as recompense.
The judgment was too able to re-establish the confidence of the legal in common individuals due to the
emphasis of epistolary ward. The judgment is interesting since the Court did not announce a cover boycott on
industrialization since it would halt all logical and mechanical advancements.
Rather, it took into consideration the requirement for industrialization and the reality that mischances are
unavoidable and in like manner accentuated requirement for arrangements to anticipate mischances and ensuing
obligation in case of mishaps.
The case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986) has ever since risen as a point of interest case not as it were in
natural activism but moreover in legal activism. It still acts as a point of reference whereas choosing
comparative cases.
Difference
st. ab.
dev. in england r v f dev. in India mc mehta
justice blackurn justice bhagwati
five defense no defense
Public Liability Insurance Act: passed 1991 : Major company should take insurance, existing company shoult
take insurance within one yhear of this act

The Public Liability Insurance Act of 1991 is an act that provides for compensation to victims of accidents that
occur while handling hazardous substances. The act applies to all owners who are associated with the production
or handling of hazardous chemicals.
Here are some key points about the Public Liability Insurance Act:
 Purpose
The act's main objective is to provide immediate relief to people affected by accidents involving hazardous
substances.
 Liability
The owner is liable to provide relief for any death, injury, or damage that occurs as a result of an accident.
 Claim process
To make a claim, an application must be submitted to the Collector in Form I. The application must be
accompanied by relevant documents, such as a death certificate, medical bills, or a certificate from an
authorized physician.
 Collector's powers
The Collector has the powers of a Civil Court, including the ability to summon and examine people on oath.
 Punishment
For a second or subsequent offense, the offender can be imprisoned for a minimum of two years and fined a
minimum of one lakh rupees.