OLEUM GAS

LEAK CASE
M.C. MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA, 1987
BENCH: P.N. Bhagwati
PETITIONER: M.C. Mehta
RESPONDENT: Union of India
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: December 12 ,1987
CITATION: 1987 AIR 1086
FACTS OF THE CASE
 Sriram food and fertilizer industry, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Limited was a private company situated in
a very densely populated area of Kirti Nagar, Delhi.
 The industry was engaged in manufacturing of sodium chloride, hydroxide, chlorinated lime, super phosphate
and oleum gas.
 M. C. Mehta, a social activist and a lawyer filed a PIL ( PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ) under Article 21
which states the RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY and Article 32 which states the RIGHT TO
CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES closure or relocation of Shriram industry because it was engaged in
manufacturing of hazardous substances, for ex. Oleum gas.
 While the petition was pending on 4th and 6th December 1985, there was a leakage of oleum from the one unit of
industry which caused the death of one advocate of Tis Hazari court also affected the health of many people
residing near the industry.
 This incident was also the reason for court to hear the petition of M.C. Mehta because the large number of people
was affected by Bhopal Gas Tragedy just one year before so this also became so important for court to take
action upon it.

3
 ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Is the industry liable to pay the damages?

2. Whether the rule of absolute liability or strict liability to be followed?
3. Whether these harmful industries to be permitted to operate in these
areas?

4
 JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
1. The justice P.N. Bhagwati adopted (Absolute Liability) where it was held that if any
industry that is engaged in a manufacturing of any hazardous substance that can posses
a life and health threat to the individual whether the employees of the industry or
people living nearby .
2. This owe the court an utter and non- delegable obligations with the highest safety
requirements and the industry must be entirely responsible for compensating for such
damage if any harm occurs.
3. He stated that we cannot adopt the policy to end the chemical and hazardous substances
manufacturing industries as they helps to improve the social and economical conditions
of life. Because, they were at least 7,000 employees who were working in the
industries.
4. The court also held that the compensation must be proportional to the size and capacity
of the industry in absolute liability and this system establishes that the greater the size
and prosperity of the Industry , the grater the compensation must be paid.
5. This case was considered as landmark judgement as after the oleum gas leak case
incident , on 23rd May 1986 the environment protection act, 1986 was passed.
 GLIDA DISPLAY

 The absolute liability can be defined as strict liability without any exceptions.
 The Indian tort law is mostly based upon the English tort law, which is based
upon English common law. Therefore India adopted strict liability rule from the
English case “RYLANDS vs. FLETCHER. “
 In the OLEUM GAS LEAK CASE justice P.N. Bhagwati analysed the case of
Rylands vs Fletcher and came on the outcome to establish absolute liability.
 If any industry or personal is engaged in non natural use of land and there is a
escape of dangerous things. So, there will be no exception but the individual or
industry would be completely liable.
THANK YOU