M. C Mehta v. Union of India
Case brief
Facts
1. On December 4, 1985 a major leakage of oleum gas took place from the chlorine plant in sriram food fertilizers which adversely affected various employees of the organization as well as the nearby residents of the locality. On December 6, 1985 another minor oleum gas leakage took place from the joints of the pipe in the plant. The Delhi administration ordered sriram to stop the manufacturing of the hazardous gases and chemicals.
2. At this point, M.C. Mehta, a leading consumer activist filed a PIL requested the court to lay certain guidelines and norms for determing the liability of the enterprises engaged in manufacturing and sale of hazardous products. He also requested for the closure of Sriram, …show more content…
The constitution of india guarantees various fundamental rights which are available to every citizen of the country irrespective of caste, creed, gender and religion. One of them is the right to life as stated in article 12 of the constitution. Right to life is basically a moral principle that a person has the right to life and he should not be unjustly killed. Right to a pollution free environment, right to be protected against dangerous incidents caused due to manufacturing of hazardous chemicals by industries, their leakage or any kind of mishap is also a part to life. Right to life also includes right to pure water, food, fresh air, safe habitat to live …show more content…
PIL system also became prominent encouraging people to file claims regarding water, air pollution, gas leakage etc. the scope of article 21 was also increased ,right to clean water , pollution free environment , safe habitat etc were included under right to life of the constitution . This was an apt decision definitely as it was for the betterment, welfare and safety of the citizens of the nation.
The doctrine of absolute liability which evolved from this case is very apt that if any hazardous industry causes such harm to the society (like the gas leakage) it should be held absolutely liable and no kind of defense should be allowed. This is also correct judgment as doctrine of strict liability which includes exceptions such as act of god; consent of the plaintiff cannot be applied in such cases. So it was very essential to devise a doctrine which held the industries (defendant) absolutely liable without any kind of exceptions.
The court’s decision of reallocating such industries, shifting them far away from the residential areas was absolutely correct as reallocation would ensure that the progress of the country and community welfare both go hand in
Case brief
Facts
1. On December 4, 1985 a major leakage of oleum gas took place from the chlorine plant in sriram food fertilizers which adversely affected various employees of the organization as well as the nearby residents of the locality. On December 6, 1985 another minor oleum gas leakage took place from the joints of the pipe in the plant. The Delhi administration ordered sriram to stop the manufacturing of the hazardous gases and chemicals.
2. At this point, M.C. Mehta, a leading consumer activist filed a PIL requested the court to lay certain guidelines and norms for determing the liability of the enterprises engaged in manufacturing and sale of hazardous products. He also requested for the closure of Sriram, …show more content…
The constitution of india guarantees various fundamental rights which are available to every citizen of the country irrespective of caste, creed, gender and religion. One of them is the right to life as stated in article 12 of the constitution. Right to life is basically a moral principle that a person has the right to life and he should not be unjustly killed. Right to a pollution free environment, right to be protected against dangerous incidents caused due to manufacturing of hazardous chemicals by industries, their leakage or any kind of mishap is also a part to life. Right to life also includes right to pure water, food, fresh air, safe habitat to live …show more content…
PIL system also became prominent encouraging people to file claims regarding water, air pollution, gas leakage etc. the scope of article 21 was also increased ,right to clean water , pollution free environment , safe habitat etc were included under right to life of the constitution . This was an apt decision definitely as it was for the betterment, welfare and safety of the citizens of the nation.
The doctrine of absolute liability which evolved from this case is very apt that if any hazardous industry causes such harm to the society (like the gas leakage) it should be held absolutely liable and no kind of defense should be allowed. This is also correct judgment as doctrine of strict liability which includes exceptions such as act of god; consent of the plaintiff cannot be applied in such cases. So it was very essential to devise a doctrine which held the industries (defendant) absolutely liable without any kind of exceptions.
The court’s decision of reallocating such industries, shifting them far away from the residential areas was absolutely correct as reallocation would ensure that the progress of the country and community welfare both go hand in