Hazardous enterprises: the rules and defences after M.C. Mehta
LUG-101 Law of Torts including Motor Vehicle Accident and Consumer Protection Act, Unit III: Principles for the application of the rules and defences for enterprises engaged in hazardous activities (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India). · LLB · 60 min
Why the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, with its exceptions, was found unsuited to India after the Bhopal gas leak (1984) and the oleum gas leak in Delhi (1985); the rule of absolute liability laid down by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), clause by clause (hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, absolute and non-delegable duty, no exceptions, compensation correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise); the Bhopal litigation (the 1985 Act and Charan Lal Sahu, the 1989 settlement and the 1991 review in Union Carbide); the later development of environmental tort law through Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (polluter pays), Vellore Citizens (precautionary principle) and M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (public trust, exemplary damages); the statutes (Public Liability Insurance Act 1991, NGT Act 2010 s. 17(3)); and the role of the judiciary under Article 21. It answers 2025-26 Q3(c) and 2024-25 Q3(b).
Objectives
- Explain why the Supreme Court departed from Rylands v. Fletcher for hazardous industries.
- State the rule of absolute liability in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) in the Court's words and explain each element.
- Distinguish strict liability from absolute liability in a table.
- Explain the Bhopal litigation: the 1985 Act, Charan Lal Sahu (1990) and the settlement and review in Union Carbide (1989, 1991).
- Explain the polluter-pays, precautionary and public-trust principles with their leading cases, and the statutory no-fault schemes.
- Discuss the power of the Indian judiciary under Articles 21, 32 and 226 to protect the right to life against environmental tortfeasors.
Slides
- Why Rylands v. Fletcher was not enough
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): the facts and the question
- The rule of absolute liability in the Court's words
- Measure of compensation; strict and absolute liability compared
- Bhopal: the Act, Charan Lal Sahu and the settlement
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996): polluter pays
- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (1996): precautionary principle
- M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997): public trust and exemplary damages
- Statutory no-fault schemes
- Article 21 and the judiciary's role against environmental tortfeasors
- Defences after M.C. Mehta and open questions
Loading the lecture…