MC Mehta Vs. Union Of India, 1986
Right to Freely Environment
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court
Date of Decision
17 February 1986
Judges
Justice P.N. Bhagwati
Citation
AIR 1987 SC 1086
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
- In 1985, there was a leakage of oleum gas from a plant operated by Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries in Bhopal, India. The gas leak resulted in the death of thousands of people and caused serious injuries to thousands of others. M.C. Mehta, an advocate, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India seeking relief for the victims and compensation for the damages caused.
Issues
- Whether such hazardous industries to be allowed to operate in such areas?
- If they are allowed to work in such areas, whether any regulating mechanism be evolved?
- How to determine liability and amount of compensation?
Judgement
The court acknowledged the role of these hazardous industries in economic development and job creation. For instance, these industries produce chlorine, which is used for water disinfection. The court's final decision was to relocate such factories to less populated areas to minimise the risk to human life. The court also recommended that the government develop a national policy for the location of such hazardous plants and ensure that they do not pose a risk to the community.
Held
- The petitioner argued that such an Industry should be ordered to immediate permanent closure. Because it would violate the fundamental right safeguarded under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and put the lives, health, and environment of the community residing nearby at risk. The petitioner contended that there is a legal obligation over the Shriram Industry to take all the essential measures to save the lives of the people residing surroundings.
- The Respondent argued that the Shriram Industry was administering and performing according to the rules and regulations specified by the Government’s Industrial Policy and eventually intended to hold the working of that Industry on its own. Shriram Industry was authorized to do so while working under the straight supervision and direction of the Government. According to the respondent’s counsel, the control, rules, and regulations of the working of the private corporation under the statutes of the board like the industries (Development and Regulation) Act 1951 only show the State’s utility of its police power to regulate. The Private corporation’s activity cannot change by this legislation to become the activity of the state. The counsel argued that the rule of strict liability must applied in this case which was laid down in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher.
Analysis
The M.C. Mehta case is a landmark judgment in India as it recognized the right to a clean and healthy environment as a fundamental right under the Constitution. The case also established the principle of strict liability, which means that a person or organization can be held liable for harm caused even if they were not negligent. This case paved the way for several other environmental PILs in India and emphasized the need for environmental protection and conservation.