Environmental Law Assignment

VISHNU .P

BCO150035

Oleum gas leakage case summary

Shriram Food and Fertilizers, a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mill Limited was a privately owned
company manufacturing caustic chlorine and oleum. “All units were set up in a single complex
situated in approximately 76 acres and they are surrounded by thickly populated colonies such as
Punjabi Bagh, West Patel Nagar, Karampura, Ashok Vihar, Tri Nagar and Shastri Nagar and
within a radius of 3 kilometres from this complex there is population of approximately 2,
00,000.” This by nature of the chemical processes involved was a polluting industry and was
creating a nuisance for the surrounding community of people. To address this issue a public
interest litigation (No. 12,739, 1985) was filed by environmentalist and lawyer, M.C. Mehta,
requesting the Supreme Court for the immediate closure and relocation of the industrial complex.

On the 4th of December 1985, one month after the petition was filed and a day after the first
anniversary of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the worst industrial mishap in the history of mankind,
Oleum had leaked from the complex into the surrounding community resulting in one fatality
and many injuries.

Since the tragedy at Bhopal was fresh in the Public’s mind, there was a very strong outcry over
this incident and resulted in drastic steps by the administration. The Inspector of Factories and
the Assistant Commissioner of Factories issued orders to shut down the plant on the 7th and 24th
of December respectively under the Factories Act (1948). Shriram responded by filing writ
petitions of itself (No. 26 of 1986) to nullify the two orders and interim opening of its caustic
chlorine plant manufacturing; glycerine, soap, hard oil, etc.

On behalf of the gas leak victims the Delhi Legal aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar
Association filed for compensation along with the original petition of M.C. Mehta.
Judicial Proceedings

I. Charges against Shriram Food and Fertilizers and objections:-

The articles of the Indian Constitution under which the petitioners moved the Supreme Court
were Article 21, Article 32 and an extension of Article 12. These articles cover the domain of
fundamental rights and hence their definition and enforcement becomes subject to different
opinions. This caused the debate on whether the Supreme Court even had jurisdiction to hear
these case. But the Supreme Court, moved by the plight of the people, went above and beyond its
jurisdiction to set up a president and safeguard the rights of the weaker sections of society.

The first objection put by Shriram’s legal team was on the scope of Article 32, that there was no
demand for compensation in the first petition by M.C. Mehta, neither was it added by
amendment to it after the accident. They also stated that both Delhi Legal aid and Advice Board
and the Delhi Bar Association were not even the belligerents in the first petition. It seemed that
they were unhappy with the Supreme Court championing this case against them. In reply the
Supreme Court cited the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. The Union of India where it stated
that the Supreme Court is not merely an institution for constitutional remedy but also confers a
responsibility to safeguard the fundamental rights of the citizens, especially those citizens who
are from weaker sections of society and cannot themselves get justice. The Supreme Court also
stated that Shriram Food and Fertilizers was being hyper-technical and hence its appeals on this
ground were denied.

The second objection was that on the use of Article 21 (on whose violation the petitions were
filed). Shriram Food and Fertilizer was a privately owned enterprise. It did not fall under Article
12 (being party to the state or state machinery) and hence if it had violated any fundamental right
of a citizen it could not be taken to court under Article 21. Chief Justice Bhagwati, presiding over
the case replied by saying that the hearing for the case concluded on the 15th December 1986,
and the verdict was being delivered on the 19th December 1986, just after 4 days due to the lack
of time and considering the urgency it was not going to go into the details of definition of state
and non-state institutions under Article 12, but since Shriram Food and Fertilizers was involved
in the manufacture of commodities essential to the public life, and supplemented the state
industries in doing so, it enjoyed all the benefits and liabilities which comes under Article 12,
Chief Justice Bhagwati called Shriram Food and Fertilizers as a “Public Character”. The
Supreme Court also explicatively said that any industry, be it private or public, which engages in
the production of goods essential to the public (infrastructure) sector was liable under Article 21.
It also stated that Shriram had been recipients of large government grants for their manufacture
and hence bore the same responsibility as well.

Judgement of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court delivered its judgement on the 19th of December 1986 and on the basis of
absolute liability and deemed Shriram responsible for the accident and resultant compensation of
the victims. The court also instructed Shriram to comply with all the recommendations of the
Nilay Choudhary and Manmohan Singh Committees and issued a strict notice that failure to do
so will result in the immediate closure of the plant. The court also instructed the victims of the
Oleum gas leak to file their complain for compensation in the Tis Hazari lower court of Delhi.