Presentation

On Oleum Gas
Leak
Acknowlegdement
Introduction
 Oleum Gas Leak(M.C. Mehta v. Union of
India)
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India is a landmark
judgment delivered by Supreme Court
regarding the remedial aspect while
enforcing fundamental rights. Being the
protector of the fundamental rights SC
chooses liberal construction of the provisions
to while deciding the case. This case also
paved the way for the doctrine of absolute
liability in the Indian legal system and
portrayed the importance of PIL for the
deprived section of the society
Issues
 Shriram Food and Fertilizer
Industry, a subsidiary of Delhi
Cloth Mills Limited, was
engaged in the manufacture
of a dangerous chemical. In
December 1985, large
amounts of oleum gas leaked
from one of the units in the
heart of Delhi which resulted in
the death of one person and
several were hospitalized. The
leakage, resulted from the
bursting of a tank containing
oleum gas, was caused by
mechanical and human errors.
 It created a scare among the
people residing nearby and 
within two days, another
leakage, a minor one, broke
out as a result of oleum gas
escaping from the joints of a
pipe. On 6th December 1985,
the District Magistrate, Delhi
ordered Shriram to stop the
manufacturing and processing
of hazardous chemicals and
fertilizers at their establishment
in Delhi and to remove such
chemicals and gases from
Delhi
 At this particular
point, M.C. Mehta
moved to Supreme
Court to file PIL and
claim for
compensation for
the losses caused
and also demanded
that the closed
establishment should
not restart.
Issues
 Threemajor issues
involved in the
case were of
constitutional
importance are
stated below:
Issue 1:
 What is the scope and ambit of the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the application for
compensation are sought to be
maintained under Article?
Issues 2
 Whether Article 21 is
available against
Shriram which is owned
by Delhi Cloth Mills
Limited, a public
company limited by
shares and which is
engaged in an industry
vital to public interest
and with potential to
affect the life and
health of the people?
Issue 3:
 What is the measure
of the liability of an
enterprise which is
engaged in a
hazardous or
inherently dangerous
industry, if by
reason of an
accident occurring
in such industry,
persons die or are
injured?
Decision
Addressing to Issue 1:
 The court said that in Bandhua Mukti Morcha
v. Union of India, court held that the scope
and ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution of
India do not merely confer power on this
Court to issue a direction, order or writ for
enforcement of the fundamental rights but it
also lays a constitutional obligation on this
Court to protect the fundamental rights of the
people and for that purpose this Court has all
incidental and ancillary powers including the
power to make and adopt new remedies and
fashion new strategies designed to enforce
the fundamental rights.
Decision 2
Addressing to issue 2
 This question particularly was very important
as if court reads a private company within the
meaning of Art. 12 of the constitution, it would
be against the doctrine of the corporate veil.
As the court has to decide the question within
four days, they dropped the question and
said that they do not propose to decide
whether a private corporation like Shriram
would fall within the scope and ambit of
Article 12, because of insufficient time to
consider and reflect on this question in depth
Decision 3
Addressing to Issue 3
 The court said to develop its own law as
the previous one can-not be applied in
the present situation and here the
doctrine of absolute liability was
introduced in India.
Conclusion
 The decision made by the Supreme Court
regarding compensation is completely
justifiable. Directing Delhi Legal Aid and
Advice Board to take up the cases of all
those who claim to have been suffered
by the oleum gas and file actions on their
behalf in the appropriate court for
claiming compensation against Shriram is
the suitable decision which needs to be
here.
Conclusion
 Theintroduction of the doctrine of
absolute liability instead of following the
old doctrine of strict liability was the best
decision which can be provided to stop
any of these future accidents. The
principle that came up with this historical
case was the principle of Absolute liability,
the polluters have to pay, adequate
precautionary measures be taken and
highest safety standards be kept in mind.
Conclusion
 Afterthis case, the definition of Article 21
was enlarged by approving Right to clean
environment, Right to human health and
Right to live pollution free from air and
water as a part of Right to life.
Bibliography