The Oleum Gas Leak Case, also known as M.C. Mehta v.

Union of India, was

a landmark Supreme Court of India case that established the principle of
"absolute liability" in environmental law. The case was triggered by an oleum
gas leak from Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries in Delhi in December
1985:
Details

What happened Oleum gas leaked from Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries into the Ganga River

Who was Social activist lawyer M.C. Mehta filed a writ petition to close the plant
involved

What was the The Supreme Court established the principle of absolute liability, which holds that
outcome dangerous industries are responsible for any harm they cause, even if there was no
negligence

What was the The ruling had a lasting impact on corporate accountability, environmental protection, and
impact industrial safety policies in India

The case also led to the introduction of several measures, including:

 The appointment of an inspector from the Central Pollution Control Board to check
emissions levels
 The creation of a safety committee for employees
 The requirement for the industry to publicize the consequences and proper treatment of
chlorine
 The requirement for employees to use protective equipment

 Introduction
 The M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case, also known as the
Shriram Industries Case or Oleum Gas Leak Case, is a
landmark ruling highlighting the importance of environmental
protection in India. On December 4, 1985, the leakage of
 oleum gas from Shriram Foods and Fertilizers in Delhi into the
Ganga River, a sacred entity in Indian culture, led to legal
proceedings that would culminate in the introduction of
the Doctrine of Absolute Liability. This case raised vital
questions under Articles 21 and 32 of the Indian Constitution,
focusing on the doctrine of absolute liability for corporations
engaging in hazardous industries.
Emerging just a year after the infamous Bhopal Gas Disaster, the
ruling served as a stark reminder of the potential hazards lurking
within industrial growth. It has had a lasting impact on corporate
accountability, environmental protection, and policies related to
industrial safety in India. This article thoroughly analyzes the
incident, the legal arguments presented, the judgment, and its
impact and influence on the Indian Legal System.

Background of the Oleum Gas Leak

Case
The Incident: Oleum Gas Leak Incident at Shriram
Food and Fertilizers Ltd.
On December 4, 1985, a catastrophic oleum gas leak occurred at
Shriram Food and Fertilizers Ltd., a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills
Limited in Delhi. The leakage affected a large number of people,
including workers and the general public, and resulted in the death
of an advocate working in the Tis Hazari Court. The incident was a
stark reminder of the potential hazards of operating chemical plants
in populated areas, especially in the wake of the Bhopal gas
tragedy.

Timeline of Events Leading to the Case

The oleum gas leak incident prompted immediate legal action. M.C.
Mehta, an environmental activist and lawyer, initiated the case,
fearing that the reopening of the plant would endanger the lives of
workers and residents. The location of the plant in a densely
populated area added to the urgency of the situation. The timeline
of the events leading to the case is as follows:
 1949: Establishment of the caustic chlorine facility, employing
nearly 263 people.
 Pre-1985: Continuous emission of hazardous chemicals,
creating a public nuisance.
 December 4, 1985: A significant oleum gas leak from one of
Shri Ram’s units, affecting many and causing a death.
 December 6, 1985: The District Magistrate of Delhi ordered
Shriram to stop producing and processing hazardous chemicals
within two days or appear in Court.
 Pending Case: M.C. Mehta filed a PIL to shut down and
relocate the Shriram Caustic Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant.
 Applications for Compensation: The Delhi Legal Aid and
Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association filed applications
for compensation for those affected by the oleum gas escape.
 Referral to Larger Bench: The case was referred to a larger
bench of five judges due to substantial questions of law.

Connection to Absolute Liability Tort

The case led to the establishment of the principle of absolute
liability, a legal doctrine that holds entities liable for harm resulting
from hazardous activities without exceptions. The incident at
Shriram’s plant highlighted the need for stringent regulations and
accountability in hazardous industries, leading to a broader
discussion on the application of Absolute Liability Tort in Indian law.

Legal Battle: Introduction to M.C. Mehta’s Public

Interest Litigation
Mahesh Chander Mehta, famously known as M.C. Mehta, a renowned
environmental activist and lawyer, initiated the case against Shriram
Foods and Fertilizer Industries. In this case, he filed a Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) against 89 respondents, including the Union of India
and various industrial bodies.
The plant was located in a densely populated area, and Mehta’s PIL
sought to prevent its reopening, fearing it would endanger the lives
of workers and residents. In this case, a commitment to
environmental protection and public safety drove Mehta’s efforts.
The case began when a matchstick caused the river to burst into
flames due to harmful compounds, highlighting the severity of
pollution. Mehta’s relentless pursuit of justice led to a legal battle
that would have far-reaching implications for environmental law in
India.

Key Issues Raised

Setting Up Treatment Plants
One of the central issues in the case was the necessity to establish
treatment plants to manage and neutralize the hazardous effluents.
The question revolved around the responsibility of industries to set
up primary and secondary treatment plants to ensure that toxic
substances did not enter the water bodies, thereby causing harm to
the environment and public health.

State Government’s Role

The role of the state government in regulating industrial activities
and ensuring compliance with environmental standards was another
critical issue. The debate focused on how much the state
government could intervene in industrial operations and the
measures it needed to take to enforce environmental regulations.

Funding for Smaller Industries

The case also raised concerns about the financial burden on smaller
industries in implementing environmental safeguards. The question
was whether there should be provisions for financial assistance or
subsidies to enable smaller industries to comply with environmental
norms without compromising their economic viability.

Central Government’s Responsibility

The central government’s responsibility in framing and enforcing
environmental policies was a significant aspect of the case. The
issue revolved around the central government’s role in ensuring that
industries across the country adhered to uniform environmental
standards and the measures needed to monitor and enforce
compliance.

Arguments
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, M.C. Mehta, argued for immediate and decisive
action to prevent pollution. He sought a writ to inhibit respondents,
including Shriram Foods and Fertilizer Industries, from releasing
toxic effluents into the environment. The petitioner emphasized the
situation’s urgency and the need for stringent measures to protect
public health and the environment.

Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, including industry representatives and the
government, acknowledged the pollution but argued against the
feasibility of establishing secondary treatment plants. They cited
financial constraints and the potential impact on smaller industries
as significant challenges. The respondents also emphasized the
need for a balanced approach that considers environmental
protection and economic development.

Legal Principles and the Judgment:

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
Summary of the Oleum Gas Leak Case Judgment
In 1988, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Oleum Gas Leak Case
held the industries responsible for proper waste treatment and
emphasized the importance of environmental protection. The Court
ordered the establishment of primary treatment plants and held
local authorities accountable for prevention. The decision allowed
the plant to reopen but imposed strict compliance safety guidelines,
reflecting a careful balance between industrial development and
environmental concerns.

The Law Laid Down in the Oleum Gas Leakage

Case
The Court introduced the doctrine of absolute liability for
corporations engaged in hazardous industries. This doctrine marked
a significant departure from the traditional principles of tort law,
making industries absolutely liable for any harm caused without
exceptions or defenses. The ruling laid a “no-fault” liability standard,
emphasizing the industries’ responsibility to ensure safety and
prevent damage.

Impact on Indian Environmental Law

The Oleum Gas Leak Case’s judgment profoundly impacted Indian
environmental law, setting new corporate accountability and
environmental protection standards. It reinforced the principle that
the right to a healthy environment is an integral part of the right to
life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Key Issues Addressed

1. Whether Hazardous Industries Should Operate in
Populated Areas: The Court recognized the need for hazardous
industries but emphasized that they must be located and
operated in a manner that poses the least risk to the community.
2. Regulating Mechanism for Hazardous Industries: The Court
suggested the evolution of a national policy for the location and
regulation of toxic industries.
3. Determination of Liability and Compensation: The Court
introduced a “no-fault” liability standard through the doctrine of
absolute liability, making the industry absolutely liable for any
harm caused without the need to prove negligence or fault.

Significance of the Case

Doctrine of Absolute Liability
 The Doctrine of Absolute Liability holds that if a person is
engaged in an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity and
harm results to others, the person is absolutely liable without
any need to prove negligence or fault.
 Doctrine of Absolute Liability was introduced in the M.C. Mehta
v. Union of India case, also known as the Oleum Gas Leak
Case. In contrast, Ryland v. Fletcher established the principle
of strict liability.
 The Court’s decision to substitute strict liability with absolute
liability marked a significant shift in legal principles.
 Essential Elements of Absolute Liability:
  Dangerous Thing: Engagement in hazardous activities.
 Escape: Escape of the hazardous substance.
 Non-natural use of Land: Use of land in a manner that
increases danger.
 Mischief: Harm resulting from the escape.
 The doctrine has increased industry accountability, setting a
legal standard for future cases involving hazardous industries.
 It has encouraged industries to adhere to safety guidelines,
enhancing the legal framework for environmental protection.

Epistolary Jurisdiction
Epistolary Jurisdiction refers to the judiciary’s power to take
cognizance of matters and initiate action based on letters,
telegrams, or other forms of communication. It represents a
significant departure from traditional legal procedures, allowing for
more accessible and flexible access to justice. In the M.C. Mehta
case context, this concept played a crucial role.

Definition and Origin

 Definition: Epistolary Jurisdiction allows the Court to act based on
letters, telegrams, or even newspaper reports rather than formal
petitions.
 Origin in India: The concept was first recognized in India in the
case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981).

Application in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

 Initiation of the Case: M.C. Mehta, an environmental lawyer,
utilized this jurisdiction to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
against the Union of India and various industrial bodies.
 Accessibility to Justice: Epistolary Jurisdiction allowed M.C. Mehta
to bypass traditional legal barriers, making the legal process
more accessible and responsive to urgent environmental
concerns.
 Judicial Activism: The Court’s willingness to entertain the case
based on a letter reflects a form of judicial activism, where the
judiciary takes a proactive role in addressing public issues.
Impact on Environmental Law
 Precedent for Future Cases: The use of Epistolary Jurisdiction in
this case set a precedent for future environmental cases,
allowing activists and concerned citizens to approach the Court
more easily.
 Promotion of Environmental Justice: By enabling the Court to act
on letters or other informal communications, it has facilitated the
pursuit of environmental justice, particularly in urgent and
significant matters.

Comparison with Traditional Legal Procedures

 Traditional Procedures: Typically require formal petitions and
adherence to specific formats and may involve significant costs.
 Epistolary Jurisdiction: Simplifies the process, allowing for
informal communication, often without legal representation.

Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

The M.C. Mehta case’s landmark ruling, which introduced the
doctrine of absolute liability, laid the groundwork for the Public
Liability Insurance Act 1991. This Act was a response to the need for
a legal framework to address liability and compensation in cases of
industrial accidents, particularly highlighted by incidents like the
Oleum Gas Leak and the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The objective of the
Act is to provide immediate relief to individuals affected by
accidents involving hazardous substances. It requires industries
handling such substances to take out insurance policies, ensuring
immediate relief to the affected persons without waiting for lengthy
legal procedures. The Act applies to all owners associated with
producing or handling hazardous chemicals, encouraging industries
to adhere to safety guidelines and take preventive measures.
The influence of the M.C. Mehta case on this legislation is profound,
as the judgment set a precedent for holding industries absolutely
liable, directly shaping the Act’s formulation. The Act’s impact on
industrial practices includes promoting corporate responsibility and
providing a financial mechanism to compensate victims promptly.
However, some critics argue that the Act’s scope is limited and only
covers some hazardous industries, and there have been challenges
in implementation and enforcement. Despite these criticisms, the
legacy of the M.C. Mehta case continues to be cited and has lasting
implications for environmental law and policy in India. The Public
Liability Insurance Act 1991 is a significant legislative response to
the principles established in the M.C. Mehta case, playing a crucial
role in shaping industrial responsibility and environmental protection
in India.

Article 21 and Due Process of Law

The M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case was pivotal in interpreting
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to
life and personal liberty. The judgment expanded the scope of
Article 21 to include the right to a healthy environment, setting a
precedent for future legal interpretations.

Interpretation in the Case

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that the right to live
with human dignity, encompassed in Article 21, includes the right to
protect and preserve the environment. The Court’s interpretation
was groundbreaking, recognizing that any act endangering or
impairing the quality of life, such as pollution or environmental
degradation, violates Article 21. This interpretation has had far-
reaching implications, influencing subsequent judgments and
shaping environmental law in India.

Connection with Due Process of Law

The M.C. Mehta case also shed light on the concept of due process
of law within the Indian legal system. The Court ensured that both
parties were allowed to defend their positions and submit their
statements and evidence. The decision was reached after a
comprehensive examination of the facts and legal principles,
adhering to the principles of natural justice. This adherence to due
process reinforced the legitimacy of the Court’s decision and
contributed to the development of jurisprudence related to
environmental protection.
Discussion on Whether Article 21 is Due Process of
Law
The case sparked a broader discussion on whether Article 21
embodies the concept of due process of law. While the Indian
Constitution does not explicitly mention “due process,” the
principles of fairness, justice, and reasonableness are inherent in
Article 21. The M.C. Mehta case exemplified these principles by
ensuring a fair trial and a just decision, reflecting the essence of due
process.

Implications for Future Legal Interpretations

The interpretation of Article 21 in the M.C. Mehta case has set a
precedent that continues to influence Indian legal thought. The
judgment has opened doors for legal activism and public interest
litigation in environmental matters by linking the right to life with
environmental protection. The principles laid down in this case
continue to guide courts in interpreting Article 21, shaping the legal
landscape and reinforcing the importance of environmental
protection within the framework of constitutional rights.

Future Implications and Recent

Case
Visakhapatnam Gas Leak Case (2020)
The Visakhapatnam gas leak, also known as the Vizag gas leak,
occurred at the LG Polymers chemical plant in Visakhapatnam,
India, on May 7, 2020. The incident was caused by a malfunction in
the cooling system of styrene storage tanks, resulting in the death
of 13 people and injuring over 1,000.
Incident: The leak happened during the early morning hours,
spreading a vapor cloud over a radius of around 3.0 km, affecting
nearby areas and villages. Preliminary investigations concluded that
the accident was likely due to insufficient maintenance, improper
storage, and operation errors.
Judgment: The local police filed a first information report (FIR)
against LG Polymers, allowing for possible charges of making the
atmosphere harmful to health and negligent conduct. The
Government of Andhra Pradesh announced compensation for the
deceased and injured, and a budget of 30 crores (US$3.8 million)
was allocated for all those affected.

Legacy of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

The Oleum Gas Leak Case ruling introduced the Doctrine of Absolute
Liability, holding industries absolutely liable for any harm caused
without any defenses. This principle was applied in the
Visakhapatnam case, where the company was held absolutely liable.
The Visakhapatnam gas leak incident has brought attention to the
importance of environmental laws and regulations, highlighting the
need for stricter enforcement and compliance. The lack of
environmental clearance for the plant and the violation of safety
norms underscores this necessity. Simultaneously, the case
reinforces the judiciary’s role in protecting the environment and
holding corporations accountable. It emphasizes the need for legal
frameworks that ensure corporate responsibility and environmental
protection, following the principles laid down in the M.C. Mehta case.
This convergence of environmental and judicial activism serves as a
reminder of the interconnectedness of legal oversight and
environmental stewardship in India.

Key Insights:
1. Scale of Tragedy: The Bhopal Gas Disaster was one of the
world’s worst industrial disasters, with a massive loss of life and
long-term health effects. At the same time, the Oleum Gas Leak
was a more minor incident but significant in legal terms.
2. Legal Implications: The Oleum Gas Leak Case introduced the
Doctrine of Absolute Liability, a landmark in Indian environmental
law. The Bhopal Gas Disaster led to changes in industrial safety
regulations.
3. Compensation: The compensation mechanisms differed in both
cases, with a substantial settlement in the Bhopal case and
court-ordered compensation in the Oleum Gas Leak case.
4. Environmental Impact: The environmental impact of the
Bhopal Gas Disaster was far-reaching and continues to affect the
area, while the Oleum Gas Leak had a more localized effect.
Conclusion
The M.C. Mehta v. Union of India judgment is a landmark decision
that has left a lasting mark on Indian environmental law.
Establishing the Doctrine of Absolute Liability and broadening the
interpretation of Article 21 has influenced many subsequent legal
decisions. This case highlighted the importance of individual rights
and environmental protection and set the stage for future
environmental cases in India. Its ongoing impact on corporate
accountability, environmental awareness, and legal oversight
emphasizes the case’s continued relevance in the Indian legal
system. It’s a constant reminder of the need to find the right
balance between growth and protecting our environment.

Introduction
The case of MC Mehta v. Union of India, often referred to as the Oleum Gas
Leak Case, is a landmark decision in Indian environmental law. This case was
triggered by the leakage of oleum gas from one of the units of Shriram Foods
and Fertilizers Industries in Delhi in December 1985, following closely on the
heels of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The Supreme Court, led by Justice P.N.
Bhagwati, established the principle of “absolute liability” in this case.

Facts of the Case

Shriram, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd., operated several industrial units
on approximately 76 acres of land in a densely populated area in Delhi. These
units manufactured chemicals such as caustic soda, chlorine, hydrochloric
acid, and sulphuric acid.

Following the Bhopal Gas Disaster in 1984, concerns about safety at

Shriram’s plant prompted government inspections and recommendations for
improvements. In March 1985, the dangers of potential leaks from Shriram’s
caustic chlorine plant were discussed in Parliament, leading to further
inspections and safety recommendations.

Subsequently, MC Mehta filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution seeking the closure of Shriram’s hazardous industrial units.
During the pendency of this petition, an oleum gas leak occurred on 4th
December 1985, causing harm to workers and the public, including the death
of an advocate.

In response, the Delhi administration issued an order under Section 133(1) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing Shriram to stop using harmful
chemicals, remove them to a safer place, or appear in court to show cause.

The legal proceedings involved multiple writ petitions, with MC Mehta seeking
the closure of Shriram’s hazardous units and Shriram contesting orders to
stop production. The Supreme Court addressed these issues, focusing on the
constitutional validity of industrial operations in densely populated areas.

Arguments Advanced in the Oleum Gas Leak Case

The petitioner argued against the reopening of the caustic chlorine plant,
citing the Agarwal Committee’s findings that highlighted inadequate safety
measures. Additionally, they pointed out that the plant’s location in a densely
populated area made it impossible to eliminate hazards completely.

The trade unions, Lokahit Congress Union and Karamchari Ekta Union,
contended that permanently closing the plant would result in the
unemployment of approximately 4,000 workers. They stressed the significant
social and economic impact of such a decision.

The Additional Solicitor General, representing both the Delhi administration

and the Union of India, maintained their objections to the plant’s reopening.
However, they suggested that if the Court decided in favor of reopening, it
should be conditional on the implementation of strict safety measures to
prevent future incidents.

Shriram’s counsel pleaded for the plant’s reopening, asserting that all safety
recommendations had been implemented, which significantly reduced the risk
of chlorine gas leakage. They emphasized the adverse effects of the plant’s
closure on employment and the functioning of the Delhi Water Supply
Undertaking. Additionally, they raised a preliminary objection regarding
constitutional issues, suggesting that the petitioner could amend the writ
petition for compensation. The Court noted that compensation applications
had already been filed by the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and the Delhi
Bar Association.

Supreme Court Observations and Actions

 Environmental Impact on the Taj Mahal: The Supreme Court noted that
both chemical pollution and socio-economic factors were degrading the Taj
Mahal and affecting people in the Trapezium Zone. It ordered 292 industries
to switch to safer fuels like propane instead of coke/coal or relocate.
 Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL): GAIL was put in charge of gas
applications for these industries.
 Worker Rights: The court granted workers some fundamental rights and
ensured they would be paid during any relocation period.

Steps by the Supreme Court

1. Expert Inspection: Before hearing the petitions on December 7, 1985, the
court appointed the Nilay Choudhary Committee to inspect a caustic chlorine
plant and report on safety recommendations. The committee reported verbally
that most recommendations were implemented.
2. Petitioner’s Experts: The court allowed the petitioner to appoint their own
experts to inspect the plant and assess hazard sources and safety
implementations.
3. Compensation Claims: The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was appointed to
handle compensation claims for victims of oleum gas leakage. The Delhi State
Legal Aid and Advice Board was directed to arrange medical checkups for
victims to support compensation claims.

Administrative Actions
 Seturaman Committee: Formed on December 4, 1985, by the Lieutenant
Governor of Delhi to investigate the oleum gas leakage. The committee
reviewed safety measures, identified responsible parties, evaluated
emergency measures, assessed factory risks to the public, and made
recommendations, including whether to relocate the factory.
 Factory Inspector and Municipal Actions: On December 7, 1985, the
Inspector of Factories banned the use of caustic chlorine and sulphuric acid
plants until safety measures were adopted. Subsequently, on December 13,
1985, the Assistant Commissioner of factories issued a show cause notice to
Shriram for license cancellation, and on December 24, 1985, Shriram was
ordered to cease industrial use of the premises. Both orders were later
suspended by the Supreme Court.

Judgement of the Case

 The Supreme Court’s final decision in the Oleum Gas Leak Case allowed
Shriram to reopen the caustic chlorine plant under strict conditions. Although
the orders by the Inspector and Assistant Commissioner of factories from
December 7 and 24, 1985, were not vacated, they were suspended. The
Court imposed ten conditions, including regular monitoring by an expert
committee, engagement of a plant operator for safety supervision, surprise
inspections by the Chief Inspector of Factories, and oversight by a Central
Board senior officer on waste management compliance.

Shriram’s Chairman and Managing Director were required to submit an

undertaking accepting liability for future accidents and compensation. The
trade unions, Lokahit Congress Union and Karamchari Ekta Union, were
tasked with forming a safety supervision committee, and the management had
to train employees and union representatives on safety measures.

Information on chlorine gas hazards had to be displayed in both English and

Hindi, and employees needed ongoing training and mock drills. The Court
also mandated the installation of loudspeakers for emergency warnings and
regular medical checkups for employees.

Shriram was ordered to pay Rs. 20 lakhs in compensation to oleum gas

leakage victims and provide a Rs. 15 lakhs bank guarantee for future
compensation claims, to be decided by the District Judge of Delhi in case of
injury or death due to chlorine gas leakage within three years.

The Supreme Court, led by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, established the principle of
“absolute liability” for enterprises engaged in hazardous activities. The court
ruled that:

 Enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities that pose

potential threats to the health and safety of people must be absolutely liable
for any harm resulting from such activities. This liability is not subject to any
exceptions, such as acts of God or actions of third parties.
 The court emphasized that such enterprises have a social responsibility to
ensure that their operations do not cause harm. In the event of an accident,
they must bear the cost of compensating affected individuals and rectifying
environmental damage.

Conclusion
The judgment in MC Mehta v. Union of India [Oleum Gas Leak Case]
significantly influenced environmental jurisprudence in India. It established a
robust framework for the liability of hazardous industries, ensuring better
protection for the environment and public health. It also led to the
reinforcement of industrial safety regulations and compliance standards and
inspired the enactment of more stringent environmental laws and regulations.
By introducing the principle of absolute liability, the Supreme Court of India set
a high standard for corporate responsibility, ensuring that industries engaged
in hazardous activities bear the full cost of any harm caused.