Absolute Liability

Introduction The rule of Absolute Liability is developed from the rule of Strict liability evolved by
Blackburn J! in the case of "ylands v #letcher A more strin$ent rule of strict liability than the rule in
"ylands v #letcher %as laid do%n by the Supreme &ourt in the case of ' & 'ehta v (nion of India
Strict Liability provides for certain defences to the defendant to $et e)emption from the liability
*hereas! the absolute liability provides no defences and the defendant has no chance to escape from
the liability Therefore
Strict Liability Liability irrespective of ne$li$ence on the part of the defendant %ith certain
defences +"ylands v #letcher,
Absolute Liability Liability irrespective of ne$li$ence on the part of the defendant %ithout
defences +' & 'ehta v (nion of India,
There are t%o leadin$ cases of poisonous $as disaster! leadin$ to the formulation of the principle
of absolute liability They are
- ' & 'ehta v (nion of India +.leum /as Leak &ase,
0 (nion &arbide &orporation v (nion of India +Bhopal /as Leak 1isaster &ase or Bhopal /as
Tra$edy,! and
In ' & 'ehta v (nion of India! the Supreme &ourt %as dealin$ %ith claims arisin$ from the
leaka$e of oleum $as on 2
th
and 3
th
1ecember! -456 from one of the units of Shriram #oods and
#ertili7ers Industries! in the city of 1elhi! belon$in$ to 1elhi &loth 'ills Ltd As a conse8uence of this
leaka$e! it %as alle$ed that one advocate practisin$ in Tis 9a7ari &ourt had died and several others
%ere affected by the same The action %as brou$ht throu$h a %rit petition under Article :0 of the
&onstitution by %ay of public interest liti$ation
The &ourt had in mind that %ithin a period of one year! this %as a second case of lar$e scale
leaka$e of deadly $as in India! as a year earlier! on the ni$ht of 1ecember 0;:! -452! due to the
leaka$e of poisonous methyl isocyanate +'I&, $as from (nion &arbide India Ltd +(&IL, at Bhopal!
'adhya <radesh more than :!=== people died and lakhs of people %ere seriously in>ured ?(nion
&arbide &orporation v (nion of India@
The &ourt observed! if the rule of rule of Strict Liability laid do%n in "ylands v #letcher %as
applied to such like situations! then those %ho had established ha7ardous and inherently dan$erous
industries in and around thickly populated areas could escape the liability for the havoc caused thereby
by pleadin$ some e)ception to the rule in "ylands v #letcher
The Supreme &ourt took a bold decision holdin$ that it %as not bound to follo% the -4
th
century
rule of An$lish La%! and it could evolve a rule suitable to the social and economic conditions prevailin$ in
India at the present day The Supreme &ourt thus evolved a ne% rule creatin$ absolute liability for the
harm caused by dan$erous substances as %as hitherto not there It e)pressly declared that the ne%
rule %as not sub>ect to any of the e)ceptions under the rule in "ylands v #letcher Bha$%ati! & J laid
do%n the ne% principle as
B*here an enterprise is en$a$ed in a ha7ardous or inherently dan$erous activity and harm results
to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such ha7ardous or inherently dan$erous
activity resultin$! for e)ample! in the escape of to)ic $as! the enterprise is strictly and absolutely
liable to compensate all those %ho are affected by the accident and such liability is not sub>ect to any
of the e)ceptions %hich operate visCDCvis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in
"ylands v #letcherE
The &ourt $ave t%o reasons >ustifyin$ the rule
#irstly! that the enterprise carryin$ on such ha7ardous and inherently dan$erous activity for
private profit has a social obli$ation to compensate those sufferin$ therefore! and it should
absorb such loss as an item of overheads! and
Secondly! the enterprise alone has the resources to discover and $uard a$ainst such ha7ards
and dan$ers
The &ourt also laid do%n that the measure of compensation payable should be correlated to the
ma$nitude and capacity of the enterprise! so that the same can have the deterrent effect
Since the payment of compensation could be a%arded by the filin$ of a suit in an appropriate &ourt
rather than throu$h a %rit petition! the Supreme &ourt directed that those or$anisations! %ho had
filed this petition! may file actions on behalf of the sufferers of the leaka$e of the .leum $as! in
appropriate &ourt %ithin 0 months and claim compensation on their behalf
So far as the le$al position of the case is concerned in ' & 'ehta v (nion of India! the Supreme
&ourt laid do%n the rule of Absolute Liability in preference to the rule of Strict Liability laid do%n in
"ylands v #letcher Thus! in (nion &arbide &orporation v (nion of India! the (&&! therefore! could
not escape the liability on the $round of sabota$e! %hich it %as tryin$ to plead as a defence! %hich is
permitted under the rule in "ylands v #letcher
After lon$ dra%n liti$ation for over 2 years! there %as a settlement bet%een the (nion of India
and (nion &arbide &orporation and in terms thereof! the Supreme &ourt in (nion &arbide &orporation
v (nion of India! passed an .rder directin$ a payment of a sum of 2F= million (S dollars or its
e8uivalent nearly "s F6= crores
The Supreme &ourt in Indian &ouncil #or AnviroCLe$al Action v (nion of India follo%ed its earlier
decision! ' & 'ehta v (nion of India! imposin$ absolute liability on enterprises carryin$ on ha7ardous
and inherently dan$erous activity
The 9i$h &ourts are also follo%in$ the precedents of the Supreme &ourt #or e)ample! the
principle of absolute liability %as applied by the 1elhi 9i$h &ourt in Arun Gumar v (nion of India
'ention must be also be made of the <ublic Liability Insurance Act! -44-! %hich is an important
le$islation to promptly compensate members of the public from accidents arisin$ out of ha7ardous
industries