Rule of Absolute Liability (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India)

Legal provision

• Article 21, Constitution of India: the right to life is the foundation. A hazardous activity near people threatens it.
• Article 32: the Supreme Court can issue directions and, as in this case, decide compensation claims in a writ petition.
• Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991: gives no-fault relief for accidents with hazardous substances.
• National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: section 17 directs the Tribunal to apply the principle of no fault when it awards relief for accidents and harm to the environment.
• Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985: a special Act for the Bhopal victims, passed after the 1984 disaster that forms the background to this case.

Meaning and definition

Absolute liability is liability for harm caused by a hazardous activity, with no defences. The enterprise cannot say that it took all care, or that a stranger or nature caused the harm.

The Supreme Court laid down the rule in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987). It held that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results. If harm results, the enterprise is absolutely liable to compensate all those affected.

The facts of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

Shriram Foods and Fertilizer Industries ran a plant at Kirti Nagar in Delhi, in an area of about two lakh people. M.C. Mehta had already filed a petition under Article 32 asking for the closure and relocation of hazardous industries. In December 1985, while it was pending, oleum gas leaked from the plant. A second, smaller leak followed two days later. An advocate who practised at the Tis Hazari courts died, and many people were affected. The case came about a year after the Bhopal gas disaster.

Detailed explanation

Step 1: why the Court moved beyond Rylands v. Fletcher

The Court said that India need not follow the English rule, which was made for a 19th century society. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher allowed defences, and it was linked to a non-natural use of land. The Court said that a modern, rapidly industrialising country needs a stricter rule for hazardous industry.

• Hazardous enterprises expose the community to risk without its consent.
• The enterprise has the knowledge and resources to guard against the risk, and it benefits from the activity.
• The victim cannot prove fault inside a factory.

Step 2: the rule

1. The enterprise must be engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity.
2. Harm must result from an accident in that activity, to persons within or outside the premises.
3. The enterprise is then absolutely liable. There is no need to prove negligence.
4. No exception applies. Act of God, act of a stranger, statutory authority and the claimant's own default are not defences.
5. The duty is non-delegable. The enterprise cannot avoid liability by saying that an independent contractor was careless.

Step 3: compensation matched to the enterprise

The Court held that the amount of compensation should correspond to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise. A large and profitable enterprise should pay more, because it can bear and spread the loss and because a small sum would not deter it. This is called the "deep pocket" principle.

Step 4: the procedure used

The Court held that it could deal with the claim in the writ petition. A hazardous industry in a populated area threatens the right to life under Article 21, so a remedy lies under Article 32. It directed the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board to take up the claims of the victims before the proper forum, on the new standard.

Step 5: what the rule does not settle

• The Court did not define "hazardous or inherently dangerous activity" for all cases. Later courts decide it by the facts: chemicals, gas, nuclear and similar activities.
• The rule applies to enterprises, not to private individuals using ordinary things.

Step 6: later development

• In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court applied absolute liability and the polluter pays principle to toxic waste from chemical plants in Bichhri. It ordered the Central Government to recover the cost of repair.
• The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and section 17 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 put no-fault relief in statute form.

Don't confuse: absolute liability and strict liability

Exams often ask for the difference. Learn the table.

Common mistakes

• Writing that absolute liability has some defences. It has none.
• Saying that the rule applies to every business. It applies to hazardous or inherently dangerous activity.
• Forgetting that compensation is matched to the enterprise's size and capacity.
• Saying escape from land is needed. The rule covers harm to persons inside and outside the premises.
• Confusing the Indian rule with the English rule. Absolute liability is Indian, and strict liability is English.

Apply it

Leading case laws

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (1987)

  Facts. Oleum gas leaked from the Shriram plant at Kirti Nagar, Delhi. An advocate near the Tis Hazari courts died.

  Principle. A hazardous enterprise owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community. It is absolutely liable, with no defences, and the compensation must match its capacity.

  Why it matters. The origin of absolute liability.

• Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)

  Facts. A reservoir burst through old mine shafts and flooded a neighbouring mine.

  Principle. A person who keeps a dangerous thing on his land must keep it in at his peril, subject to defences.

  Why it matters. The English rule that M.C. Mehta went beyond.

• Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)

  Facts. Chemical plants in Bichhri left toxic sludge that poisoned wells and soil.

  Principle. The Supreme Court followed absolute liability and the polluter pays principle.

  Why it matters. It applied the rule to pollution and fixed the polluter's duty to pay for repair.

How to write this answer in the exam

Key points to remember

• Absolute liability applies to hazardous or inherently dangerous activity.
• No defence is available: not act of God, act of a stranger, statutory authority or the claimant's default.
• The duty to the community is non-delegable.
• Compensation matches the size and capacity of the enterprise.
• No escape from land is needed. Harm to persons within or outside the premises counts.
• Source: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), an Indian rule wider than Rylands v. Fletcher.

Quick self-test

Related topics

• Liability without fault
• Rule of Strict Liability (Rylands v. Fletcher)
• Occupiers liability
• Nuisance - Public Nuisance and Private Nuisance