M. C. Mehta v.

Union of India

Submitted by subhadra subhadarsani

Course – BBA LLb
Regn number -1941801017
Background of the case

Court -Supreme Court of India

Full case name -M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Decided -20 December 1986
 Citation(s) -1987 SCR (1) 819, AIR 1987 965
 Majority- P.N. Bhagwati CJI
 Laws applied -Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution of India
Background of the case

 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India originated in the aftermath of

oleum gas leak from Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. Complex
at Delhi. This gas leak occurred soon after the infamous Bhopal
gas leak and created a 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.
Facts of the case

In 1985, a major leakage of Olium Gas from the “Shriram Food and Fertilizer
Company” took place in Delhi which resulted in the death of several persons.
The District Magistrate, Delhi, Directed Shriram that within two days Shriram should
cease carrying on the occupation of manufacturing and processing hazardous and lethal
chemicals and gases including chlorine, olium etc. at their establishment at Delhi.
 After that M.C.Mehta moved to the Supreme Court to claim compensation by filing a
PIL for the losses caused and pleaded that the closed establishment should not be
allowed to restart.
 Issue of the case

 Issue: It was contested that if all the tragedies arising from the
conduct of the large factories follow the rule of strict liability,
they will fall under the exceptions and get away scot free for the
damage they have caused in the conduct of their activity.
 Judgement of the case
The Supreme Court made the following observation:
Since we are not deciding the question as to whether Shriram is an authority within the meaning of
Article 12 so as to be subjected to the discipline of the fundamental right under Article 21, we do not
think it would be justified in setting up a special machinery for investigation of the claims for
compensation made by those who allege that they have been the victims of oleum gas escape. But we
would direct that Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board to take up the cases of all those who claim to
have suffered on account of oleum gas and to file actions on their behalf in the appropriate court for
claiming compensation against Shriram. Such actions claiming compensation may be filed by the
Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board within two months from today and the Delhi Administration is
directed to provide the necessary funds to the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board for the purpose of
filing and prosecuting such actions.
 Thus the High Court was directed to nominate one or more Judges as may be necessary for the
purpose of trying such actions so that they may be expeditiously disposed of. Simply because the
gas caused death and many people were hospitalised.
 Judgement of the case

 The Court also directed that 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 of oleum gas if there was any escape of chlorine gas within three years from
the date of order resulting in death or injury to any workmen or living public in the
vicinity . The quantum of compensation was determinable by the District Judge ,
Delhi .It also shows that the court made the industry “absolutely liable “ and
compensation to be paid as when the injury was proved without requiring the
industry to be present in the case .
 Few conditions were formulated to ensure continuous compliance with the safety
standards and procedures laid by the committees (Manmohan Singh Committee and
Nilay Choudhary Committee ) so that the possibility of hazard or risk to workmen
could be reduced to nil .