M.C MEHTA V.

UNION OF INDIA
AIR 1987

ABSTRACT

Environment is the natural world affected by human activities. Human act is the direct
implication of any damage or good done to the environment. It is a habitat where person, animal
and plant lives. Depletion of resource causes environment degradation. Environment loss is done
where there is any disturbance which is deleterious. The Constitution of India prescribes various
guidelines in protection of environment. This paper attempts to cover a landmark judgement
which changed the ambit of environment laws.

Keywords- Environment, Resources, Law, Indian Constitution.

INTRODUCTION

It is well said that if you give to nature the nature will return it. The environment is a civil law
providing remedy for the harm caused to the environment. Environment degradation is one of the
ten threats cautioned by High-level panel on threats and The United Nations .There are various
domestic and international treaties governing environment laws.

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

A term coined by eminent jurists Justice P.N Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer. PIL i.e Public Interest
Litigation is the litigation done in the interest of public. It is a social tool within the judicial
process which accelerates speedy trials and strengthen the confidence of public in judiciary. It
evolved as a objection to the rule of ‘locus standi’. Article 32 and Article 226 of the indian
constitution has given power to the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively for entertaining
PIL. Keeping in mind these powers are self-imposed restrictions. The reason for liberating the
locus standi rule is –
firstly, to secure fundamental rights.

Secondly, to effectively implement police reforms and protect violations of law.

Thirdly, India is a welfare state where rights and duties are correlated for instance, effluents in a
lake, poor transport facilities, emission of peril gases in the environment results in public injury
which is different from private injury.

Therefore it is a settled principle that if there arises any public injury damaging the environment
by an act or omission contrary to the law, any member of the society in good faith can maintain
an action for redressal.

FACTS OF THE CASE

 M.C Mehta, the petitioner was a social activist lawyer who filed a Public Interest Litigation
for closure of various units of Shriram foods and fertilizers industry, a subsidiary of delhi
cloth mill ltd. Which was engaged in manufacturing of hazardous substances.
 The enterprise in the case is caustic chlorine plant commissioned in 1949 situated in densely
populated area of kirti nagar.
 During the pendency of petition filed by M.C Mehta, on 4th of December, 1985 there was a
major leakage of oleum gas from one of the units within the plant not only did it affected the
employees but people too who resided near and around the factory.
 On 6th of December,1985 another leakage took place of oleum gas from the joints of a pipe
in the plant.
 The delhi magistrate, delhi immediately ordered the factory to stop manufacturing of
hazardous and lethal substances.
 Four committees were formed in deciding the guidelines for protection of fundamental rights
of people affected.
 Persons affected by the gas leak were allowed to file compensation claims.
 M.C Mehta filed a writ petition under Article 21 and 32 to sought closure and relocation of
Shriram foods and fertilizers industry.
 ISSUES

1. Whether the caustic chlorine plant of shrirram foods should be allowed to operate in
such areas.
2. Whether shriram foods engaged in manufacturing of hazardous substances should be
held absolutely liable.
3. Whether shriram industry is considered a ‘state’ under Article 12.
4. Whether the compensation claims made under Article 21 is available against shriram
industry by affected people.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

The court decided to use concept of absolute liability against the enterprise. Citing the case
rylands v. fletcher - if a person who brings on to his land and collects and keep there anything
likely to do harm and such thing escapes and does damage to another he is liable to compensate
for the damage caused. The liability is thus strict and it is no defence that the thing escaped
without the person’s wilful act, default or neglect.

The court interpreted that the leakage was caused by series of human err and not by sabotage of
third party. Hence shriram foods was held absolutely liable.

DECISION
1. The chlorine plant engaged in manufacturing of lethal substances should not be
allowed to restart because it affected and damaged the environment along with people
in general. The guidelines for operation should not be against the Directive Principles
of State Policy under Articles 39,41,42 and 47 which specifically laid down the
healthcare provisions.
It also was violative of Article 21 which embraces right to clean environment.

2. The court examined the applicability of rule laid down in rylands v. fletcher.
An industry engaged in hazardous activities which poses a potential danger to health
and safety of the persons working and residing near owes an absolute and non-
delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone.
Therefore, the enterprise should be held absolutely liable.
3. The activity of manufacturing chemicals and producing toxic substances should be
deemed to be done by the ‘state’ as it regards to public interest. State is responsible
for healthcare statndards and protection of environment. Under this analysis, private
corp. are also held liable because of the nature of this activity.
Hence, shriram foods will be considered as a ‘state’ under Article 12.

4. Shriram foods must be held liable for the compensation claims made by the affected
people. Their responsibility was to provide highest standard of safety while carrying
out such activities. The enterprise is under an obligation to pay appropriate
compensation to secure justice among people.

In preventing Pollution of Ganga and Yamuna, 1995 under the Environmental

Protection Act, the Supreme Court asked to remove all polluting industries settled on
the bank of ganga.

In Tarun Bharat Sangh (NGO) v. UOI, closure of 400 marble mines around sariska
tiger reserve which threatened the wildlife of that area.

CONCLUSION

The scope of Article 21 is broad. It is not only a fundamental right of life but of
quality, pollution free and a healthy life. The welfare of people is of utmost
importance. There must be equilibrium between human life and industrialiasation.
At present the whole world is facing grave environmental issues. Environment
degradation done by depletion of resources should be eradicated and more steps
should be taken to make environment clean and safe.
This case should be a paradigm to other industries to make stringent standards to
provide health safety to its employees and healthy environment to public.