By Ananta Chopra
Name of the case: MC Mehta v Union Of India
Forum: Supreme Court Of India
Citation: 1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819
Facts of the case
1.Shriram food and fertilizer industries was operating a public limited company ,called Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. ,located in the intensely populated area of Kriti Nagar.
2. The business had 76 acres of space. It manufactured a number of different chemicals in the same complex, including caustic chlorine and oleum.
3.Colonies with dense populations surrounding the complex included Punjabi Bagh, West Patel Nagar, Karampura, Ashok Vihar, Tri Nagar, and Shastri Nagar. Two lakh individuals were estimated to reside inside the complex's five-kilometer radius.
4. Numerous chemical processes used in the manufacturing process polluted the surrounding area and may have been hazardous to the health of nearby residents as well as industrial workers.
5.Prominent environmentalist and attorney Mahesh Chandra Mehta filed a Public Interest Litigation with the Supreme Court, requesting that the industries be moved or shut down.
6. While the PIL was still under consideration, a leakage occurred in one of the units. An oleum gas tank burst out. It affected several people and resulted in the death of a lawyer practicing in the Tis Hazari Court. While people were yet to recover from this tragedy, another leakage from a pipe joint occurred after two days.
7.The damage caused this time was less intense and widespread. This incident came only few years after the infamous Bhopal Gas Tragedy that had taken place. It was found out that the reason behind the oleum gas leak was a fault in the mechanism and structure of the plant.
8. The Delhi District Magistrate then moved quickly to address this. In accordance with section 133(1) of the CrPC, he mandated that the deadly gas production cease and that the dangerous chemicals and gasses be removed from the region within a span of seven days. On December 17, 1985, the Industry was ordered in a judicial proceeding to provide justification for why this order should not be implemented.
Under the Factories Act of 1948, factories were closed by the Inspector of Factories and separate orders were issued by the Commissioner (Factories).
Issues
1.What is the real scope of Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution?
2.What are the principles that would determine the liability of large enterprises manufacturing and selling hazardous products?
3.How would liability be quantified in such cases?
4.Should such hazardous enterprises be allowed to function in such densely populated areas?
5.If permission is granted for their operation, what measures must be taken to reduce the risk of injury or hazard to the workmen and the community living in the neighborhood to a minimum?
Judgement
It was held that the Supreme Court may issue writs under Article 32, not only as preventive measures when fundamental rights were in danger but also as remedial measures when those rights were violated[1].
The Court went on to say that, given the rapid advancements in research, the 19th-century English rule of strict liability was insufficient to handle the growing volume of environmental law claims.
Industries were held to the highest standards of care and held fully accountable for any harm they may have caused to society, even in cases when they had not been negligent.The Court approved the reactivation of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries' caustic chlorine facility under strict guidelines. The limitations followed the guidelines established by the Manmohan Singh and Nilay Choudhary Committees. They included routine Pollution Control Board inspections.
The Court mandated that the compensation scale be commensurate with the size and potential of the respective businesses.
In order to pay the victims' compensation, the Court mandated that Shriram Industries deposit twenty lakh rupees and provide a fifteen lakh rupee bank guarantee. If there was another chlorine gas escape within three years of the order date, compensation for the victims was guaranteed. In the event that a case of this kind ever came up, the District Judge of Delhi was to determine the quantum of compensation. Additionally, the petitioner received a token of appreciation from Shriram Industries in the amount of Rs. 10,000. The Apex Court recommended the establishment of an independent Center "with professionally competent and public spirited experts to provide the needed scientific and technological input." The opinions of such an Ecological Sciences Research Group could be valuable in the future when rendering judgments pertaining to the environment, and the Group could serve as a repository of information for the Government and the Courts[2].
Contemporary analysis of the judgement
Amidst the current global climate catastrophe, the Supreme Court's seminal ruling that underscores stringent liability for industries causing environmental harm is still applicable. Reflecting the increased understanding of environmental challenges, the verdict emphasizes industries' responsibilities for society harm and admits the inadequacies of 19th-century legal rules. Regarding climate change, the ruling establishes a pattern for holding industries to high standards, encouraging preventive actions, and providing compensation that matches their effects. The demand for an independent Ecological Sciences Research Group is in line with the necessity for well-informed decision-making as climate-related concerns become more pressing.
The author of this article is Ananta Chopra, a second year BALLB student at University School of Law and Legal Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University.
This article contains the view of the author and the publisher in no way associates with the views or ideologies of the author. All the moral rights vests with the Author(s).
Comments