M.C. Mehta V.

Union of India-AIR1987SC965

Introduction
This case commenced in the aftermath of the oleum gas leakage from
Shriram Foods and Fertilizers, reminded everyone of the Bhopal Gas
Tragedy. Bhopal gas tragedy, the disaster was a result of a leak of methyl
isocyanate (MIC) which occurred in the month of December in a pesticides
manufacturing plant named Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL).

This case was a result of a writ petition filed by a prominent lawyer M.C
Mehta against Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries because it was
located in one of the foremost populous areas of the town and therefore the
emissions coming from it are hazardous for the overall population. The most
controversy raised during this case was that the firms should be closed or
removed and relocated from the place because they are often dangerous to
the people residing nearby.
This particular issue was stated ahead 3 judges' bench, who ultimately
allowed Shriram industries to operate in the vicinity of Kirti Nagar, Delhi and
subjected to certain rules and guidelines which were laid down and this was
the sole easy question ahead of the court to be decided until the main
concern had risen and altered the course of action.
While this writ petition was pending within the court of law, there occurred
a leak within the Shriram industrial units on 4th and 6th December 1985,
there was an escape of oleum gas which also led to the death of a few.

The oleum gas leak case is one of the landmark judgments of the Indian
judiciary and also a conspicuous case in the field of environmental field and
for the first time in Indian history a company (Shriram Food And Fertilizers
Ltd.) was held liable for its actions and was asked to pay compensations.
This accident happened soon after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and created a
havoc situation in Delhi and developed a sense of fear in the resident. In this
very case, one person died, several people were hospitalized. The Supreme
Court propounded the principle of Absolute liability in this case; it turned
out to be one of the landmark cases of Indian history. This oleum gas leak
case was focused on environmental issues and its tormented laws.
These laws needed implementation as well as amendments. In this
particular case, the Supreme Court focused on social, legal, and economic
factors of the society; i.e. defended the environment as well as rights of the
public. The Ryland v. Fletcher rule was applied in this case. J. Bhagwati
stated that the above rule has been 100 years old and is not enough to
decide cases such as these, as science has improved a lot in these years,
which is why the Supreme Court went a little further and implemented the
absolute liability rule

Issues Involved:
• Do such hazardous industries allowed to operate in such areas?
• Would any regulating mechanism be evolved if such kinds of
industries have to run in the area?
• How to determine the liability and amount of compensation in such a
scenario?
• How Article 32 of the Indian Constitution does extend in these cases?
• Whether the rule of Absolute Liability or Rayland v. Fletcher is to be
followed?
• Whether 'Shriram' could be considered to be a 'State' within the ambit
of Article 12?

Held:
This is the landmark judgment as for the first time in Indian history a
company (Shriram Food and Fertilizers Ltd.) was held liable for its actions
and was asked to pay compensations. It was held by the Supreme Court of
India that a complete ban on such industries will impact the growth and
development of the country and the closure of such industries would bring
unemployment to 4000+ workers.
The Supreme Court in its decision made it clear that closing of such
industries will create a hindrance in the development of the country, certain
conditions were drafted for the safety of people and the environment so that
there would be no hindrance in the development of nation and there would
be no hazardous disaster like Oleum gas leakage. In this particular case, the
Supreme Court focused on social, legal, and economic factors of the
society; i.e. defended the environment as well as rights of the public.

Law On the Point:

Article 12. Definition:
In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the
Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the
Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the
territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.

Article 21. Protection of life and personal liberty:

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according
to procedure established by law.
Article 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part:
The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement
of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses
(1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise
within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable
by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as
otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
Section 133(1) CrPC. Conditional order for removal of nuisance:
Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub- divisional Magistrate or any other
Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this of behalf by the State
Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information
and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit.
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974:
The act was commenced in 1974 and is applicable to the states of Madhya
Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Assam, Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Bihar
Tripura, West Bengal, Kerala, and the union territories. This act could be
adopted by any state through a resolution passed declaring to adopt the Act.
The Water (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 was commenced to stop and
control pollution and to revive and maintain the wholesomeness of water for
the establishment. The Act also gave some powers to the central board and
the state board to regulate pollution of the water bodies.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981:
This act was established shortly after the commencement of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It desired to provide
stringent legislation for the dominant environmental facet in India. This act
aimed to provide provisions to decrease and control pollution within the
country and sets up Boards within the central government and the state to
hold out the required steps to realize this aim. The Boards are given the
facility to line up regulations to make sure that pollution is controlled within
the country. The legislation allows the Boards power to take reasonable
actions on the individuals that fail to satisfy the air quality standards.

Conclusion:
This is the landmark judgment as for the first time in Indian history a
company (Shriram Food and Fertilizers Ltd.) was held liable for its actions
and was asked to pay compensations. This incident took right before the
implementation of Environment Protection Act 1986 and become precedent
for the implementation of such laws.

The Supreme Court in its decision made it clear that closing of such
industries will create a hindrance in the development of the country, certain
conditions were drafted for the safety of people and the environment so that
there would be no hindrance in the development of nation and there would
be no hazardous disaster like Oleum gas leakage.

In this particular case, the Supreme Court focused on social, legal, and
economic factors of the society; i.e. defended the environment as well as
rights of the public. Every individual possesses a right to live in a safe and
healthy environment and it's our responsibility to maintain such healthy and
secure environment for upgrading the society.
 Vishaka V. State of Rajasthan-AIR1997SC3011

Introduction
The case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) is a landmark judgment that
laid the foundation for safeguarding women against sexual harassment at
the workplace in India. This Public Interest Litigation (PIL), filed by the NGO
Vishaka, arose from the brutal gang rape of a social worker, Bhanwari Devi,
in Rajasthan. The incident highlighted the systemic failure to protect women
and the absence of effective laws to address sexual harassment at
workplaces.
The Supreme Court's judgment in this case introduced the Vishaka
Guidelines, which served as the framework for addressing sexual
harassment until the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013. This
assignment delves into the facts, legal issues, judgment, and significance of
this case in shaping gender justice in India.
Facts of the Case
The case originated from the heinous gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social
worker from Rajasthan. She had been actively working as part of a
government program to prevent child marriages in her village. Her efforts,
however, angered members of the local community. As an act of retaliation,
she was gang-raped by influential men in the village in 1992.
Bhanwari Devi’s case highlighted the following issues:
The absence of laws addressing sexual harassment at workplaces.
The systemic failure of law enforcement agencies in protecting women and
ensuring justice.
The pervasive societal attitudes that trivialized violence against women.
The lack of effective remedies and the broader implications of workplace
harassment prompted Vishaka, an NGO, to file a PIL in the Supreme Court,
seeking the court’s intervention to ensure gender justice.
Legal Issues and Arguments
Legal Issues
Does sexual harassment at the workplace violate the fundamental rights of
women under the Constitution?
What obligations does the State have in ensuring a safe workplace for
women?
Can the judiciary establish guidelines in the absence of specific legislation
addressing sexual harassment?

Arguments
Petitioner’s Arguments:
Sexual harassment violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14
(Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and Article 21
(Right to Life and Dignity) of the Constitution.
The lack of effe”tive laws to address workplace harassment undermines
gender equality and violates India’s obligations under international
conventions like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents emphasized procedural issues and argued that existing
criminal laws under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were sufficient to address
crimes against women.
They contended that workplace harassment could not always be classified
as a violation of fundamental rights.
The arguments brought to light the glaring inadequacies in addressing
workplace harassment through existing legal mechanisms.

Judgment and Legal Principles

Judgment
The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment, recognized sexual
harassment at the workplace as a violation of fundamental rights under
Articles 14, 15, and 21. It issued a set of binding guidelines, known as the
Vishaka Guidelines, to address workplace harassment in the absence of
specific legislation. Key aspects of the judgment included:
Definition of Sexual Harassment: The Court provided a broad definition,
encompassing any unwelcome sexual behavior, whether physical, verbal,
or non-verbal.
Employer’s Responsibility: Employers were mandated to take preventive
steps, including creating a complaint mechanism and awareness programs.
Complaint Mechanism: Every workplace was required to establish a
Complaints Committee with a majority of women members and an external
representative from an NGO or organization committed to gender justice.
Legal Principles Gender Equality: The judgment reaffirmed the
constitutional guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 15. Right to
Dignity: It expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include the right to a
dignified workplace free from harassment.
Judicial Activism: The Court took a proactive approach by formulating the
Vishaka Guidelines, demonstrating the judiciary’s role in filling legislative
gaps.

Impact and Significance

Impact
Creation of Vishaka Guidelines:
The guidelines provided a framework for addressing sexual harassment at
workplaces until the enactment of specific legislation.
They placed the onus on employers to ensure a safe working environment
for women.
Legislative Reform:
The judgment directly influenced the enactment of the Sexual Harassment
of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013,
which codified the Vishaka Guidelines into law.
It also raised awareness about workplace harassment and encouraged
women to speak out.
Judicial Precedent: The case set a precedent for the judiciary to intervene in
addressing societal issues in the absence of legislation.
It strengthened the role of PILs as a mechanism for promoting social justice.
Significance
The Vishaka judgment was a monumental step in ensuring gender justice
and workplace safety in India. It not only filled a legislative void but also
paved the way for broader discussions on women’s rights and gender
equality. The guidelines became a model for other nations grappling with
similar issues.
Conclusion
The Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan case is a landmark in Indian jurisprudence,
highlighting the judiciary’s proactive role in addressing gender justice. By
recognizing workplace harassment as a violation of fundamental rights, the
judgment empowered women to seek redressal and demanded
accountability from employers and the State.
The case underscores the need for continuous efforts to ensure gender
equality and workplace safety. While significant progress has been made
since the Vishaka judgment, challenges remain in implementation and
awareness. The principles established in this case continue to inspire legal
and social reforms, making it a cornerstone of gender justice in India.
 Actus De Nemini Facit Injuriam

Introduction
The Latin maxim “Actus de nemini facit injuriam” translates to “an act of the
law does injury to no one.” This legal principle reflects the Idea that the law
operates in such a manner that no individual is harmed when a lawful act is
performed. It is a cornerstone of equitable justice, ensuring that the
enforcement of legal provisions does not cause undue hardship or unfair
harm to any party.
This assignment delves into the origin, interpretation, application, and
relevance of this principle in legal systems worldwide, with particular
emphasis on its role in Indian jurisprudence.
Origin and Meaning of the Maxim
The concept of “Actus de nemini facit injuriam” originates from Roman law,
which has significantly influenced modern legal systems. It embodies the
belief that the law, by its very nature, is impartial and just. This maxim
operates on the following premises:
Law as an Instrument of Justice: The primary objective of the law is to
maintain order and fairness in society.
No Malice in Legal Actions: Any harm caused by the implementation of the
law is deemed justifiable, as it is not personal but arises from legal necessity.
For example, when property is acquired by the State under eminent domain
for public purposes, it may appear to harm the owner. However, such
actions are lawful and justified, provided compensation is granted.
Application in Legal Contexts
The principle of “Actus de nemini facit injuriam” finds application in several
areas of law, including:
Property Law:
In cases of compulsory acquisition, the government takes private property
for public use. While this might seem injurious to the property owner, the act
is lawful, provided fair compensation is paid.
Example: The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, allows the State to acquire land
while ensuring the rights of the owners are protected.
Criminal Law:
The lawful arrest or detention of an individual under due process does not
constitute harm in the legal sense. Example: If a person is convicted after a
fair trial, the resultant imprisonment is considered a lawful consequence,
not an injury.
Taxation
The imposition of taxes may burden individuals financially. However, such
acts are lawful and do not qualify as injuries, as they are necessary for the
functioning of the State.
Civil Law:
A contract terminated in accordance with its terms may cause
inconvenience to a party but does not constitute legal injury.
Judicial Interpretation
The judiciary has often relied on this maxim to balance individual rights and
societal needs. Some landmark cases where this principle has been
discussed include:
Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982):
The Supreme Court held that actions taken by the State under the authority
of law, even if they seem detrimental to an individual, are lawful as long as
procedural safeguards are followed.
K.K. Bhaskaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (1987):
In this case, the principle was invoked to justify government actions in the
public interest, emphasizing that legal acts do not constitute injury.
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):
The principle was indirectly applied when the Court upheld reservations for
socially and economically backward classes, reasoning that such acts
serve a greater public good and do not amount to an unlawful injury to others.
Relevance in Modern Jurisprudence
In contemporary legal systems, this principle plays a vital role in ensuring
that:
Legal Processes are Fair: The law is applied without bias, ensuring
procedural fairness to all parties involved.
Public Interest is Prioritized: Actions taken in the public interest, even if they
appear harsh, are upheld as long as they are lawful.
Compensation Mechanisms Exist: When lawful actions cause harm,
mechanisms like compensation or rehabilitation ensure justice.
For instance, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, individuals
whose property is acquired are compensated fairly, mitigating potential
harm.

Criticism and Limitations

While the principle ensures that the law is fair and impartial, it is not without
criticism:
Perception of Injustice:
Individuals affected by legal actions may perceive them as unjust,
especially when compensation or procedural safeguards are inadequate.
Rigid Application:
The maxim does not account for situations where the implementation of the
law disproportionately affects vulnerable populations.
Abuse of Legal Authority:
The principle assumes that the law is always just, which may not be true in
cases of poorly drafted or outdated legislation.
Conclusion
The maxim “Actus de nemini facit injuriam” reflects the foundational
principle of justice that legal actions, when conducted in accordance with
the law, do not constitute injury. It underscores the importance of fair
application of the law while balancing individual rights with societal needs.
However, its effectiveness depends on the robustness of legal safeguards
and the integrity of the legal system.
In the Indian context, this principle ensures that State actions, judicial
decisions, and administrative measures adhere to constitutional values.
While it has its limitations, it remains a guiding tenet of justice in modern
legal systems.