According to India's Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules

1989, styrene is classified as a 'hazardous and toxic chemical'.

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.
Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Processing Claims Act of 1985

Environment court 186th law Commission Report

The passage of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

 Bhopal Gas Leak (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, which gives the Central
Government powers to secure claims arising from or linked to the Bhopal gas
tragedy. Those claims are dealt with promptly and reasonably under the
provisions of this Act.
 Post-Bhopal gas tragedy, clear guidelines for the storage of hazardous chemicals
at plants have been issued. Following the Bhopal disaster, several legislations
were enacted, beginning with the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, to the
Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.
 The Manufacture, Storage, and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989,
styrene are classified as a ‘hazardous and Environment (Protection) Rules,
1986 rules say: “Set discharge and safety standards-pollution-restricting source
standards; manufactured products product standards and ambient air and water
standards-to govern the quality of life and environmental protection.”
 Hazardous Waste (management, handling, and trans-boundary movement)
Rules, 1989 says, “Industry needed to recognise major accident hazards, take
preventive measures and submit a report to the authorities appointed.”
 Manufacture, Storage, and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989:
“ Importers must provide the competent authority with complete product safety
information and must transport imported chemicals as per the amended rules.”
 Factories Amendment Act, 1987: “Provision to monitor the location of dangerous
units; health of staff and residents nearby; and regulations for emergency plans
at the site and steps to manage disasters.”
  Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991: “Imposes a no-fault responsibility on the
manufacturer of the hazardous substance and allows the owner to compensate
accident victims regardless of any negligence or default. To this end, the owner
must take out an insurance policy covering potential responsibility for any
incident.”
 Chemical Accidents (Emergency, Planning, Preparedness, and Response) Rules,
1996: “Centre is required to form a central crisis group for chemical accident
management; establish a rapid response mechanism called a crisis alert system.
Each State must establish a crisis group and report on its work.”
 The National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997, in which the National
Environment Appellate Authority can hear appeals concerning the restriction of
areas in which industries, operations or processes or groups of industries,
operations or processes are not carried out or under other protections under the
Environmental Protection Act, 1986.
 National Green Tribunal, 2010, provides for the creation of a National Green
Tribunal for the successful and swift disposal of cases relating to the protection
of the environment and forest conservation.
The company is not in business for helping people its for making money and profits

Considering the adverse environmental impact and public health concerns, a paralegal might explore the
possibility of treating the case as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and its implications on the legal strategy.

While the company's adherence to international safety standards is mentioned, there is no exploration of
how these standards align with or differ from local laws in Indistan.

As Michael Ross representing the victim, Mr. Jim Hopper, and the NGO 'Saviour of Human Rights Foundation' in
the gas leak incident, the arguments can be structured to establish the liability of the company for its acts and
omissions. Here are potential arguments for Issue 1:

**Argument 1: Company's Negligence**

*Sub-Argument 1.1: Breach of Duty of Care*

- The company has a duty of care towards the community and the environment, especially when dealing with
hazardous materials such as Styrene gas.

- Negligence is evident in the failure to conduct a routine inspection, as admitted by Ms. Monica Geller, the
company's manager. The omission of the inspection during the COVID-19 lockdown demonstrates a lack of
reasonable care, considering the potential risks associated with the project.

*Sub-Argument 1.2: Causation*

- The disintegration of the pipeline, leading to the escape of Styrene gas, resulted in significant harm to the
surrounding population. The link between the company's failure to inspect and the subsequent gas leak
establishes causation.

- The adverse effects on the environment, hospitalization of individuals, and loss of lives are direct consequences
of the company's negligent actions.

**Argument 2: Strict Liability**

- Styrene Polymers Pvt. Ltd. operates in a high-risk industry, dealing with hazardous substances. Under the
principle of strict liability, the company can be held accountable for the harm caused, irrespective of negligence, as
it engages in inherently dangerous activities.

- Even if the company adhered to international safety standards, the fact that a serious incident occurred indicates
a failure in the duty of care associated with operating such a facility.

**Argument 3: Regulatory Compliance**

- The company's reliance on clearances from the Marimba Pollution Control Board (MPCB) is not a shield against
liability. The MPCB's project approval schemes are under scrutiny and subject to legal challenge, indicating a
potential flaw in the regulatory process.

- If the MPCB approved the project without proper scrutiny or if corruption influenced the approvals, the company
cannot escape liability by shifting blame onto the regulatory body.

**Argument 4: Duty to Prevent Environmental Harm**

- Environmental Impact Assessment Rules 2006 place a responsibility on the company to prevent environmental
harm. The gas leak incident, with long-term effects as suggested by the government-based research institute,
underscores the violation of this duty.

- The company cannot absolve itself of liability by attributing the incident solely to external factors like the heavy
winds; it had a duty to anticipate and mitigate such risks.

These arguments collectively aim to establish the company's liability based on negligence, strict liability,
regulatory compliance, and the duty to prevent environmental harm.
- Whether the gas leak incident falls within the ambit of environmental issues, making it subject to the jurisdiction of
the National Green Tribunal (NGT) under the National Green Tribunal Act.
- Considering the specialized nature of the NGT, which is specifically designed to adjudicate environmental matters,
whether the Supreme Court is the appropriate forum for addressing the environmental concerns arising from the
Styrene gas leak.
- Whether the prima facie environmental impact of the gas leak incident justifies the case being heard by the NGT,
which is equipped to handle cases related to the environment, conservation of forests, and other natural resources.
- Whether the gas leak incident qualifies as a matter of public interest that should be adjudicated by the NGT in
accordance with the criteria for filing public interest litigations related to environmental issues.

The complex nature of the gas leak incident and its environmental repercussions, it is more fitting for the NGT to
adjudicate the matter. The NGT is designed for swift and efficient adjudication of environmental matters. Transferring
the case to the NGT would expedite the legal process, allowing for a quicker resolution and appropriate remedial
measures for the affected parties.The National Green Tribunal Act was enacted with the specific purpose of providing
a dedicated forum for the resolution of environmental disputes. Interpreting and respecting the legislative intent would
mean transferring the case to the NGT. Consistency in environmental jurisprudence can be achieved by adhering to
the designated forums for such matters. Allowing the NGT to hear the case would contribute to a coherent and
specialized body of environmental law.

1.1) The Scope of Article 21

1.1 It is most humbly submitted that the Article 21 of the Constitution of Antia is of
the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights to safeguard life and dignity
of a person. With a view to protect the interest of women, the Hon’ble court have
recognised a wide range of rights such as right to bodily integrity 65, right to make
reproductive choices – includes right to abstain from procreating66, Right to work
with Dignity67, Women’s right in respect of minimum wages, basic health,
maternity rights68, Right to reside in shared household (women in domestic
relationship)69, Right to reside as a part of right to maintenance70, Right to abstain
from sexual intercourse71, right to live with human dignity72, Right of sexual
privacy.73
1.2 It is submitted that the Hon’ble court opined that every women has the right to
sexual privacy and no one can violate this right.74
1.3 The above proposition reflects the expanding jurisprudence of Article 21. The
evolution of Article 21 commenced after the judgement in Maneka Gandhi case. It
was held that “the attempt of the court should be to expand the reach and ambit of
 the fundamental rights rather than attenuate their meaning and content by a
process of

62
Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, AIR 2018 SC 4321
63
Article 15, The Constitution of Antia, 1950
64
Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, AIR 2018 SC 4321
65
Independent Thought v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4904
66
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, AIR 2010 SC 235
67
Justice K.S Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors, (2017) 10 SCC 1
68
Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor secretary, Orissa state commission for women and ors, AIR 2010 SC 2851
69
Manmohan attavar v. Neelam manmohanattavar, AIR 2017 SC 3345
70
AnukritiDubey v. Parthakansabanik and ors, 229 (2016) DLT 84
71
Govind v. State of M.P, AIR 1975 SC 1378
72
Francis Coralie Mulin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608
73
Kharak singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC 1295
74
State of Maharashtra v. Madhkar Narayan, AIR 1991 SC 207
judicial construction”75 and hence any historical view that violates these core rights
could not be upheld in the present day context.