Case Comment:

MC Mehta

Vs

Union of India, 1987

Citation:- 1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819, 1987 SCC (1) 395

Date of Judgment:- December 20, 1986

Court:- Supreme Court of India

Appellant:- MC Mehta

Defendant:- Union of India (and Sri Ram Food and Fertilizers)

Bench:- C.J.I. P. N. Bhagwati

Justice G. L. Oza

Justice D. P. Madon

INTRODUCTION
The 1986 case titled MC Mehta v. Union of India, with MC Mehta being the
petitioner-in-person himself has become a landmark judgement in
environmental activism in India. The case is significant in various regards.
The judgement, after the deadly Bhopal Gas Disaster in 1984, changed the
scope, extent, and application of not only the environmental laws in India but
also that of Article 21 dealing with the right to life and personal liberty and
Article 32 dealing with remedies for violations of fundamental rights of the
Constitution of India.

The present article enumerates the judgments passed in this case by the
Supreme Court of India and also explores the underlying legal issues and
findings of the Court as well as several newly evolved legal principles from
this case.

Background of the case

Shriram, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd., had several units situated in a
single complex comprising land of approximately 76 acres in a densely
populated area around it. The enterprise manufactured various chemicals
like caustic soda, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, alum, anhydrous
sodium sulphate, high test hypochlorite and active earth and regularly used
products such as bleaching powder, superphosphate, vanaspati and soap.
The caustic chlorine plant in question was commissioned in 1949 and had a
strength of 263 employees.

After the Bhopal Gas Disaster in 1984, the Central Government appointed a
firm named ‘Technica’ to inspect the caustic chlorine plant owned by
Shriram, and a preliminary report identifying potential areas of concern and
suggestions for improvement were submitted by the firm.

In March 1985, the possibility and dangers of any major leakage from the
caustic chlorine plant of Shriram were discussed in Parliament. In response to
that, an expert committee called the Manmohan Singh Committee was
constituted to further inspect the caustic chlorine plant. They submitted a
report after a detailed inspection with recommendations for various safety
and pollution control measures.

The petitioner-in-person MC Mehta filed the first Civil Writ Petition 12739 of
1985 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to seek a direction for the
closure of various industrial units owned by Shriram Foods & Fertilisers
Industries (here-in-after referred to as ‘Shriram’ for convenience) since they
were located in a heavily populated area in Delhi and were hazardous to the
people living in the vicinity.

During the pendency of the abovementioned petition, there was an incident

of leakage of Oleum gas from one of the industrial units of Shriram for which
awards of compensation were filed by both the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice
Board and the Delhi Bar Association.

Another Civil Writ Petition 26 of 1986 was filed by Shriram contesting the
validity of multiple orders asking to stop their production.

The Supreme Court laid down several new legal principles in the case. The
landmark judgments were the result of two Civil Writ Petitions 12739 of 1985
and 26 of 1986.

The first order, passed by a three judges bench consisting of the then Chief
Justice of India, PN Bhagwati along with Justice DP Madon and GL Oza on 17 th
February 1986, dealt with whether the caustic chlorine plant owned by
Shriram Foods and Fertilisers should be allowed to be reopened or not.

Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries filed an application for clarification.

The Court found the application asking for modification of certain orders and
based on the order for which the Supreme Court pronounced another order
on 10th March 1986.
The final judgement separately dealing with constitutionally significant
questions was pronounced by a five-judge bench (also known as the
Constitution Bench under Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India) on 20 th
December 1986.

Facts of the case

On 4th December 1985, an incident of a major leakage of oleum gas

happened from one of the units of Shriram. The leakage physically affected
many common public both the workmen as well as common people outside.
Moreover, an advocate practising in the Tis Hazari Court died after inhaling
oleum gas. The incident was confirmed by both the petitioner and the Delhi
Bar Association. After two days, another minor leakage of oleum gas took
place from the joints of a pipe on 6th December

Due to the subsequent two incidents of oleum gas leakage, the Delhi
administration immediately responded by issuing an order under Section
133(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which directed Shriram to
take the following steps:

To stop using harmful chemicals and gases in the unit within two days;

Remove the said chemicals to a safer place within seven days and not keep
or store the chemicals in the same place where the disaster happened again;

Or, to appear in the Court of District Magistrate, Delhi to show cause for the
non-enforceability of the mentioned order on 17 th December 1985.

On the next day, both the above-mentioned writ petitions came up for
hearing in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also took cognisance of
the above order by the District Magistrate and noted that due to the
“inadequacies”, it is not possible to take the steps urgently.

Steps taken by the Supreme Court and administrations

Firstly, the Supreme Court, before taking the writ petitions for hearing on 7 th
December, 1985, appointed a team of experts called the “Nilay Choudhary
Committee to perform an inspection of the caustic chlorine plant and to
report whether the recommendations of the Manmohan Singh Committee
were properly implemented or not. The team conducted a “cursory
inspection” for a few hours and reported verbally that most of the
recommendations were implemented by the management of the plant and
the main sources of hazard, two tanks of chlorine, each with the capacity of
one hundred MT, were emptied.

Secondly, the Court also gave the petitioner the liberty to appoint his own
team of experts and was directed to have access to the caustic chlorine plant
for inspection of any possible sources of hazards to the workmen and
common people and further checking of the implementation of the
recommendations of the committee.

Thirdly, the Court appointed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate before whom
the victims of oleum gas leakage can claim compensation. The Court also
directed the Secretary of Delhi State Legal Aid and Advice Board to ensure
the medical checkup of the victims by experts to gather evidence against the
compensation claimed in the incident.

Steps by the administration

The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi formed an expert committee called the

“Seturaman Committee on 4th December, 1985, immediately after the first
leakage, to inspect the following:
  Examine the reasons for the leakage and the effects;

 Whether proper safety measures and rules were properly followed by

the management;

 Persons responsible for the leakage;

 Reviewing emergency measures for further risks;

 Examination of risks and hazards from the factory on common people

and make specific recommendations; and

 Advise whether the location of the company should be shifted or not,

The report of the Committee mainly dealt with the safety measures in the
sulphuric acid plant where the oleum gas leakage took place but was
referred to by the Supreme Court since it was relevant regarding the risks
and safety measures to be taken in the caustic chlorine to minimise dangers
to the common people.

During the ongoing hearing in the Supreme Court on 7 th December, 1985, the
Inspector of Factories in Delhi exercised the powers given under Section
40(2) of the Factories Act, 1948 and banned Shriram from any further use of
both the caustic chlorine and sulphuric acid plants until proper and adequate
safety measures were adopted to eliminate the risks posed to people living
nearby.

The Assistant Commissioner of factories under the Municipal Corporation of

Delhi sent a show cause notice to Shriram on 13 th December, 1985 to explain
why their licence should not be cancelled under Section 430(3) of the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 for violating the mentioned terms and
conditions. After Shriram showed cause, the Assistant Commissioner directed
Shriram to stop using the premises containing the caustic chlorine plant for
any industrial purposes by an order on 24th December, 1985.

However, both the orders by the Inspector and Assistant Commissioner of

factories dated 7th and 24th December, 1985, respectively, were suspended in
the first order of the Supreme Court.

Legal issues dealt in the case of

MC Mehta vs. Union of India (1986)

In the two judgements passed respectively on 17 th February and 20th

December 1986.

The first judgement examined the scope of public Interest Litigation in the
environmental laws And mostly dealt with

 Whether the Supreme Court had the authority under Artide 32 to

decide Shitram to restart its caustic chlorine plant?
 What are the necessary conditions to be Satisfied in order to run an
industrial unit in a heavily populated area
 The decision of constitution of Environmental Courts in India regionally.

The constitutionally important questions were Discussed in detail in the final

judgement. The legal Issues addressed therein are as follows:

 Whether the jurisdiction and authority of the Supreme Court under

Article 32 can be Extended

 Whether applications for compensations to Victims are maintainable

under the said Article.
  Whether Shriram falls under “other authorities” As mentioned in the
Whether the right to life under Article 21s Available against a private
corporation like Shriram

 If a letter addressed to any individuals judge is Maintainable as public

interest litigation

Contentions raised by the parties in MC Mehta vs.

Union of India (1986)

Arguments by the petitioner

On the basis of the liberty given to him by the Supreme Court, the
petitioner-in-person formed a Committees of experts named the “Agarwal
Committee and inspected the caustic chlorine Plant of Shriram. The
Committee found multiple Inadequacies in the safety measures and was of
the opinion that the complete elimination of hazarded was impossible due to
the location of the plant in a densely populated area. Based on the findings,
the petitioner-in-person submitted before the Court that the caustic chlorine
plant should not be slowed to restart since there would always be a
significant possibility of hazards to the people living nearby even if all the
recommendation made by all The expert committees were properly
implemented By the management of Shriram

Submission by counsel for the trade unions

The counsel for Lokahit Congress Union and Karamchari Ekta Union, the two
trade unions of Shriram submitted that the permanent closure of The plant
would result in the unemployment of About 4,000 workmen

Statement of Additional Solicitor General

The Additional Sollortor General appeared on behalf Of both the
administration of Delhi and the Union of India. Both the Delhi administration
and the Union Of initia did not withdraw the objections on the Issue of
reopening the plant. However, it was Submitted that if the Court decided to
permit the Reopening after examining the absence of any real Hazards to the
local community, the reopening Could only be ondered after imposing strict
safety Measures to ensure the safety of the employees Well as the people
nearby.

Pleadings of counsel of Shriram

The counsel for Shriram pleaded before the Court To allow Shriram to restart
operations in the caustic Chiorine plant since the management of Shriram
Had taken all the possible steps and safety Measures and implemented all
the Recommendations made by both the Manmohan Singh Committee and
the Nilay Choudhary Committee. With all the precautions, there was no Or
very little possibility of leakage of chlorine gas Furthermore, due to the
closing clown of the factory, About 4,000 employees would be unemployed
and The Delhi Water Supply Undertaking would face non- Availability of
chlorine and a short supply of Downstream products used to purify water it
was Alse submitted that weather plants of Shriram would Be opened after
adopting pro Safety measures

The counsel also raised a “preliminary objection Before the Court regarding
the dealing of Constitutionally significant issues since the leakage Occurred
The filing of the petition. According to Him, the petitioner could file an
amendment to the Writ petition for compensation. The Court accepted The
fact but did not sustain his objechon because The Delhi Legal Aid and Advice
Board and the Delhi Bar Association had already filed applications for
Compensation

Judgement of the court

The judgement consisted of several important Discussions Points of law and

multiple legal Principles, as well as consideration of the Arguments. The
Court, rather than merrily dealing With legal provisions, applied a humane
touch by Considering the fates of the employees. The various Aspects of the
judgements are discussed as Follows:

Decision on the relocation of The caustic chlorine plant

On the question of whether the caustic chlorine Plant of Shriram should be

permitted in be Restarted The Court referred to the opinions Of the various
expert committees constituted Warlier. Though the opinions of the expert
Committees were conflicting, all of then Unanimously expressed the view
that the risk to the Employeen and people outside could be minimised With
the adoption of proper safety measures, but it Was not possible to fully
eliminate them. For that Reason, the “general consensus of all the
Committees was to relocate the plant

For future reference, the Court detected the Government to form a national
policy for the Location of such hazardous industries to eliminate Mask factors
The Court also noted that all the expert committees Had the unanimous
opinion that considerable Negligence in maintenance and operation and
Defects in the structure of the plant were present However, despite showing
initial indifference, The management of Shriram later implemented all The
recommendations of the three expert Committees, the caustic chlorine plant
may be Restarted due to the absence of imminent danger to The employees
and the community. The Court also considered the fact that the factor of
Unemployment would arise due to The plant

Consent order under Water Act and Air Act

The Dental Pollution Control hunt had raised a Question regarding the
discharge of effluents and Waste water since they did not properly follow the
Standards set by the board to discharge wastes by Using appropriate
technologies.
Shriram had to obtain a consent order under The Water Prevention And
control Of Pollution Act 1974 For discharging effluents from the plant. So The
Court directed the Canal Water Bard to grant A temporary consent order for
one month. The Court also asked the Board to collect samples from
Discharged effluent is ascertain that the collected Samples comply with the
standards mentioned in The consent order. If the standards were found to be
Violated, the Board should inform the Court about The violation and might
take any action against Shriram accordingly

Similarly, the plants of Shriram were attuated in the Air pollution control anca
as notified by the Central Govemment under Section 181) of the A
Prevention and Cormor of Putiation) Act, 1881. To run the plant, Shriram had
to apply for a Consent order under 21 af the Shriram Complied with sil the
conditions mentioned in the Consent order under the Ar Act, 1981 at that
time. However, the Court gave the Bored the liberty to Take appropriate
disciplinary action against Shvitam If the Board found any violations of the
consent Order

Grievance with Delhi Municipal Corporation

The Court expressed certain grievances with the Delhi Municipal Corporation
due to their failure to Keep the sewer clean so that it could be used for The
discharge of effluent. The Court noted that no Positive steps were taken by
the municipality to Clean the choked sewer situatred in the Najafgem Area.
Though the Court dit not issue any direct Order to clean up the sewer, it
regretted the Indifference of the Delhi Municipality to clean up The sewer due
to which the process of discharging The effluents was affected.

Final decision

The final decision by the Supreme Court was to give Shriram.permission to

reopen the mentioned plant. Though the earlier two orders passed by the
Inspector and Assistant Commissioner of factories Dated 7 th and December,
1985 were not Vecated, both the orders Suspended. The Court gave
temporary permission to run the plant And set ten conditions to strictly
follow, along with Fines. The Court also mentioned that failure to Maintain
the conditions would result in the Cancellation of the permission granted by
the Court

Conditions to be followed

The strict conditions set by the Supreme Court for Shriram to restart the
caustic chlorine plant were as Follows

 The Court noted that only after fing the PIL Shriram was forced to
implement all the Recommendations given by the expert Committees.
Hence, Court directed an expert Committee to monitor the safety
measures and Maintenance once a fortnight twice and then Submit a
report before the Court. The Court Directed Shimam to pay Rs thirty
thousand as The cost of various expenses of the expert Committee

 The Court directed Shriram to engage one plant Operator to supervise

the safety and secunty Measures of the plant in case of any further
Future mishap, the operator would be held Responsible personally

 The Chief Inspector of Factories or any other Inspector under his

direction was supposed to Pay a surprise visit without prior information
Once every week. The duty of the Inspector wat To inspect whether the
management of the plant Was following all the safety measures as
Directed by the expert committees

 In addition to the above, the Court further asked The Central Board to
engage another s Officer to examine whether Shriram was properly
Following the waste management rules

 The Court directed the Chairman and Managing Director of Delhi Cloth
Mills Ltd, the company which was the owner of all the units of Shriram,
 ta submit an undertaking to the Court declaring that in future, they
would be liable for further Accidents and should personally pay
Compensation to every victim.

 The two trade Shimam, Le, Lokahit Congress Union and Karamcharl
Ekta Union, Were asked to form a committee containing Three
representatives after nomination from each of the unions to supervise
the safety Arrangernents of the plant and to inform the Management in
case of any negligence. The Court further directed them to inform the
Labour Commissioner if the management ignored such Defaults of
wilful negligence. The Court also directed the management to train the
Representatives regarding the functioning of the Plant within two
weeks.

 A detalled chart in both English and Hindi Containing side effects of

chlorine gas in the Human body and what to do in case of emergency
leakage should be in every Department as well as at the gate of the
Premises

 The employees in the caustic chlorme plant. Should be educated and

properly trained Regarding the functioning of the plant and the Steps
to take duning leakage. The court Suggested using audio-visual
programmes to Educate, and after that, a refresher course Along with
mock trials should be conducted at Least once every six weeks

 The Court also directed the installation of Loudspeakers on the factory

premises to warm Local people E of accidental leakages

 A proper vigilance by management to esuret That the employees were

also abiding by the Safety procedures and conducting regular Medical
check-ups.

Payment of compensation
The Court directed Shrsam to pay a sum of Fi Twenty lace for the payment of
compensation to Victims of oleum gas leskage. Besides that, a bank
Guarantee of Re fifteen lacs should be submitted to The Regretrar A security
deposit to be used as Funds for compensation claims in case of any injury or
death of any local people or employee due to Chlorine gas leakage within
three years in such a Situation, the District Judge of Delhi would decide The
amount of compensation to be paid

Suggestions and directions Of the Supreme Court to the

Government of India

• The Court suggested the Government of India set up a “High Powered

Authority” after consulting with the Central Board to supervise the
functioning of such industries. The Court further requested to formulate a
national policy regarding the location of such industries in places where there
are little or no health hazards to the common public.

• Scientific and technical knowledge is required to determine the legal cases

regarding the environment. In the absence of any independent machinery, it
becomes difficult. Hence, the Court requested the Indian Government to set
up a piece of independent machinery called the “Ecological Sciences
Research Group” consisting of various science and technology experts to
assist the Court in cases relating to environmental issues. Setting up of
Environmental Courts

After this landmark case, the Supreme Court directed the government to set
up environmental courts regionally to deal with cases regarding various
environmental issues such as pollution, ecological destruction, and other
conflicts with proper attention. The Environmental Court should have one
professional judge and two experts in science and technology from the
“Ecological Sciences Research Group” to assist the judge In adjudicating the
case.

However, either of the parties may appeal the decision of the Environmental
Court to the Supreme Court
 Judicial recognition of the efforts of the petitioner

Though the Court permitted the restarting of the caustic chlorine plant, the
Court deeply appreciated the petitioner MC Mehta for his efforts in bringing
such a serious issue before the Court. For fighting a “valiant battle” to save
the environment and as a token of appreciation, the Court asked Shriram to
pay him a sum of Rs ten thousand as costs.

Discussion of legal principles

The constitutionally significant questions decided by the five-judge bench

gave rise to some new legal principles.

Epistolary jurisdiction

The Court reiterated the rulings of the landmark cases SP Gupta v. Union of
India (1981), People’s Union For Democratic Rights And Others v. Union Of
India & Others (1987) and Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors.
(1984) which discussed the scope and ambit of the Supreme Court under
Article 32. The Supreme Court should decide on a writ petition by giving
appropriate directions and should protect the fundamental rights of the
citizens. In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha, it was further decided that the
procedure should not act as an obstruction to justice and broadened the
locus standi and gave rise to epistolary jurisdiction.

Epistolary jurisdiction is different from regular writ jurisdiction, which refers

to the situation when the court acts on the basis of any letter sent by a social
group or any public-spirited individual.

In the present case, the Court also decided that letters addressed to an
individual judge should be taken cognisance of under the epistolary
jurisdiction.
 A new principle of liability

Under the rule of strict liability as evolved in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher
(1868), the defendant is liable for any harm or damage caused to the plaintiff
even if it is completely unintentional or without any fault or any awareness
on the part of the defendant

While deciding the case, the Court did not find the applicability of the rule of
strict liability and evolved a completely new principle of liability called the
rule of absolute liability. According to the rule of absolute liability, if any
individual or any industry is engaged in an inherently dangerous or
hazardous activity and any harm is caused to anyone while carrying out such
activity, the said individual carrying out such activity should be absolutely
liable.

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

The need for a comprehensive Act dealing with liability, compensation,

powers of officials and cognisance of offences and providing relief to victims
due to hazardous industries arose immediately after the Bhopal tragedy. The
Court also stressed the same in this case. The Public Liability Insurance Act
was later enacted in 1991 to deal with such issues.

Future implications

The new legal principles and the reforms were reflected in the recent case of
In re: Gas Leak at LG Polymers Chemical Plant in RR Venkatapuram

Village, Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh (2020), also known as the

Visakhapatnam gas leak case (2020) or Vizag gas leak case (2020). In this
case, a hazardous gas called styrene leaked from the factories of LG
Polymers, causing the deaths of 12 people and injury to many more, as well
as damaging the environment. The company was held absolutely liable
under the Act and was required to deposit Rs fifty crores with the National
Green Tribunal.

Conclusion

Because of the public interest litigation, an industry, for the first time in
Indian legal history, was held absolutely liable for an accident and was
required to pay a large sum as compensation. The judgement was also able
to reinstate the faith of the judiciary in common people due to the reiteration
of epistolary jurisdiction. The judgement Is unique because the Court did not
declare a blanket ban on industrialisation since it would stop all scientific and
technological advancements. Rather, it took into account the need for
industrialisation and the fact that accidents are inevitable and accordingly
emphasised the need for policies to prevent accidents and subsequent
Liability in case of accidents. The case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986)
has ever since emerged as a landmark case not only in environmental
activism but also in judicial activism. It still acts as a precedent while
deciding similar Cases.

References

* https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/economy/story/oleum-leakage-spells-
big-trouble-for-shriram-food-and-fertilisers-800495-1986-01-15

* https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/new-laws-were-written-1457

* https://www.jstor.org/stable/25742002?seq=1
* https://www.jstor.org/stable/759728?seq=1

* https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1486949/

* https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-earthdaywithdna-mcmehta-vs-union-
of-indiathe-fight-goes-on-2411278

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/06/03/v gas-leak-rs-50-cr-
deposited-by-lg-polymers-to-be-appropriated-towards-its-part-liability-in-
restoration-of-environment-and-compensation-to-victims-erring-officers-of-
andhra-authorities-need/