1|Page

CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

SUBJECT – ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

TOPIC –PRINCIPLE OF ‘NO FAULT AND ABSOLUTE’LIABILITY

SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. AJAY Kr. BARNWAL

FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

SUBMITTED BY:

ZAINUL ABEDEEN

B.A.LL.B.(H), 7th Sem

CUSB1613125054

1|Page
2|Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Without your kind support Dr. Ajay Kr. Sir, it would not have been possible for me to
write this project. You have always been very responsive in providing necessary information,
you have always been my source of inspiration and will remain forever I admit this too.
Without your generous support I might not have been able to complete this project.

I am very thankful to you and for your magnanimous support!

Zainul Abedeen

2|Page
3|Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………..2

Aim, Objective and Research Methodology………………………….…...4

1. Introduction……………………………..….……………………………5

2 Strict Liability and Its Application in Environmental Law……….……6

3. Absolute Liability and Its application ……………………………...….7

4. Relevant Acts………………………………………………….………..8

A. Public Liability Insurance Act 1991

B. National Environment Tribunal Act 1995

5. Conclusion……………………………………………………..………12

Bibliography………………………………………………………..…….13

3|Page
4|Page

Aim and Objectives

To study about the environmental law with reference to some important

principles, Indian legislation and judicial pronouncement in India.

Research Methodology

The researcher has adopted secondary data sources mainly from electronic and library
books.

4|Page
5|Page

1. INTRODUCTION

Environment on global level is the paramount issues for the survival of species being.
Due to so called human development the most affected thing is environment. Time to time
there are conventions, principles, legislations are made at national as well as international
level. There are some principles which is evolved by the judiciary which has to be dealt here.

The Bhopal Gas Tragedy is one of the most devastating accidents in the history. It
was a mass disaster caused by the leakage of Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) and other toxic gases
from a plant set up by the Union Carbide India Ltd. for the manufacture of pesticides in
Bhopal on the night of December 2, 1984. UCIL is a subsidiary of Union Carbide
Corporation (UCC), a multinational company registered in U.S.A. More than 27 tons of
methyl isocyanate and other deadly gases turned Bhopal into a gas chamber. None of the six
safety systems at the plant were functional, and Union Carbide’s own documents prove the
company designed the plant with ‘unproven’ and ‘untested’ technology, and cut corners on
safety and maintenance in order to save money. The disaster resulted in the death of at least
3000 persons and there were serious diseases and injuries to many people. Some people
permanently lost their eyes, hearing senses, some suffered from neurological disorders and
scores of other complications.

In the Oleum Leak case, the petitioner brought a suit in the Supreme Court of India as
a writ petition where a fertilizer manufacturing plant, operating in a densely populated part of
the city of New Delhi, had a case of leaked oleum gas. This incidence killed a person and
severely injured others. The closure of the plant caused widespread angst because 4000
workers were rendered unemployed.

The Supreme Court of India laid down in the case that any industry engaged in a
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the
immediate community to ensure no harm is done to them. This applies if the activity
undertaken in the facility could create a health or safety hazard not only for the workers but
also for those people who live in the adjacent areas. The enterprise will still be liable if it has
taken every possible precaution and no negligence can be accounted to it. The Court also

5|Page
6|Page

observed that the larger physical and economic structure of the enterprise, the heftier would
be the compensation.

2. Strict Liability and Its Application

Strict liability is the principle which evolved from case of Rylands v Fletcher in the
year 1868. 1This principle clearly states that a person who keeps hazardous substances in his
premises, is responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner and causes
damages. This principle stands true if there was no negligence on the side of the person
keeping it and the burden of proof always lies on the defendant to prove how he is not liable.

The principle of strict liability clearly states that a person who keeps hazardous
substances in his premises is responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner
and causes damages. This principle stands true if there was no negligence on the side of the
person keeping it and the burden of proof always lies on the defendant to prove how he is not
liable. Whereas the rule of absolute liability held that where an enterprise is engaged in a
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and it harm results to anyone on account of an
accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, the
enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate to all those who are affected by the
accident.

There are some exceptions to this principle such as Act of God, sabotage, the plaintiff
own faults, the plaintiff consent , the natural use of land by the defendant and statutory
authority.

1
People United for Better Living in Calcutta v. State of W.B., AIR 1993 Cal. 215.

6|Page
7|Page

3. Absolute Liability and Its Application

The rule of absolute liability was evolved in the case of M.C.Mehta v Union of India. 2
This was a very important landmark judgment that brought in a new rule in the history of the
Indian Law. The rule held that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity and it harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of
such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, the enterprise is strictly and
absolutely liable to compensate to all those who are affected by the accident.

Facts: In the city of Delhi, there was severe leakage of oleum gas on the 4th and the
6th of December, 1985. This took place in one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers
Industries belonging to the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. due to this, an advocate practicing in the
Tis Hazari Court had died and many others were affected by the same. The action was
brought through a writ petition by way of public interest litigation (PIL). In Indian law,
public interest litigation means litigation for the protection of the public interest. It is
litigation introduced in a court of law, not by the aggrieved party but by the court itself or by
any other private party. It is not necessary, for the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, that the
person who is the victim of the violation of his or her right should personally approach the
court. Public interest litigation is the power given to the public by courts through judicial
activism. However, the person filing the petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court
that the petition is being filed for a public interest and not just as a frivolous litigation by a
busy body.

Issue: The issue raised was a very strong issue. It said that if all these tragedies follow
the rule of strict liability, they will come under the exceptions laid down for Rylands v
Fletcher case.

Judgment: The Supreme Court took a very bold decision to evolve a new rule fit for
the economic and social conditions prevailing in India. The rule of absolute liability was then
formed in preference to the rule of strict liability. This rule ignored all the exceptions in the
Rylands v Fletcher case.

2
AIR 1988 SC 1037

7|Page
8|Page

The rule clearly held that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity and it harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of
such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, the enterprise is strictly and
absolutely liable to compensate to all those who are affected by the accident and such liability
is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict
liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

4. Relevant Acts

The Environment (Protection) Act (EPA), 1986, is the first Indian legislation to deal with
environment protection and its components in a holistic way. The EPA was purportedly
framed to give effect to the decisions taken at the UN conference on the human environment
held in 1972; however, many critics say that it was the Bhopal tragedy that precipitated the
enactment of the legislation.3 The EPA provided a framework for management of hazardous
substances, prior assessment of the environmental impact of major developmental projects,
discharge of industrial pollutants and effluents into the environment, guidance for industrial
sitting, and management of chemical accidents.

The EPA takes away the independence of the States with regards to action and
legislation towards issues of the environment. The Act requires the States to get clearance
from the Centre to flag off projects. This political invasion leads to many foreseeable
delays26. Additionally the central clearance requirement does not always weed out projects
which are given the green signal are not always the most eco-friendliest of projects. Some of
the projects allowed to flourish are plain exploitative and ecologically damaging.

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 came on the heels of the Bhopal Gas tragedy27. Its
main aim was to provide relief to victims of industrial disaster victims. It became obligatory
for industrial set-ups to obtain insurance which was equivalent to the capital needed to
establish the industry. The District Administration was responsible in giving compensation to
the effected person in reasonable time.

3
Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India (1995) 3 SCC 42.

8|Page
9|Page

In June 2010 the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Bill was passed. It heralded a new
dawn in environmental protection. The court has been set in Bhopal and five benches spread
around the country with the sole mission to quickly dispose of environmental protection
cases. The court has been designated to be headed by a sitting or retired Supreme Court judge
or the Chief Justice of a High Court. Its first target will be to wrap up 5,600 cases taken from
all the High Courts to of the country. Compensation can be claimed in case of death,
disability, damage to property and loss of business or employment. Though no limit has been
fixed for the compensation, the tribunal may provide relief and compensation to the victims
as it may think fit.

Cases

A few cases where Absolute Liability was upheld:

M.C. Mehta vs. UOI AIR, 1987 SC 1086

The S.C. of India was dealing with claims of leakage of oleum gas on the 4th and 6th
December,1985 from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, Delhi. Due
to this leakage, one advocate and several others had died. An action was brought against the
industry through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by way of a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL). The judges in this case refused to follow the Strict Liability
Principle set by the English Laws and came up with the Doctrine of Absolute Liability. The
court then directed the organizations who had filed the petitions to file suits against the
industry in appropriate courts within a span of 2 months to demand compensation on behalf
of the aggrieved victims.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy / Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 548:-
This doctrine was upheld in the infamous Bhopal Gas Tragedy which took place between the
intervening night of 2nd and 3rd December, 1984. Leakage of methyl-iso-cyanide(MIC)
poisonous gas from the Union Carbide Company in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh led to a major
disaster and over three thousand people lost their lives. There was heavy loss to property,
flora and fauna. The effects were so grave that children in those areas are born with

9|Page
10 | P a g e

deformities even today. A case was filed in the American New York District Court as the
Union Carbide Company in Bhopal was a branch of the U.S. based Union Carbide Company.
The case was dismissed there owing to no jurisdiction. The Government of India enacted the
Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and sued the company for damages on
behalf of the victims. The court applying the principle of ‘absolute liability’ held the
company liable and ordered it to pay compensation to the victims.

Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1446
A PIL filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution voiced protests of the petitioners over
the presence of industries that was causing large scale environmental pollution and
endangering the lives of the villagers who resided in the vicinity of the industries. It violated
their right to life and liberty given under Article 21of the Indian Constitution as they were
unable to live in a healthy environment. The Supreme Court initiated instant action and
ordered the Central Government and the Pollution Control Board to constitute strict measures
against the said industries. The court upheld the Doctrine of Absolute Liability here stating
that the polluted environment must be restored to a pollution free one conducive for healthy
living by utilizing anti-pollution scientific appliances. The expenditure so incurred in this
process must be paid by the industries even if their properties need to be attached for this
purpose. The industries were made absolutely liable for paying monetary damages for
restoration of the environment.

Absolute Liability can also be upheld by the courts in case of a single death without any
mass destruction of property or pollution of the environment.

Klaus Mittelbachert vs. East India Hotels Ltd., A.I.R 1997 Delhi 201 (single judge):
In this case, the plaintiff, a German co-pilot suffered grave injuries after diving into the
swimming pool of the five-star restaurant. Upon investigation, it was seen that the pool was
defectively designed and had insufficient amount of water as well. The pilot’s injuries left
him paralyzed leading to death after 13 years of the accident. The court held that five-star
hotels that charge hefty amounts owe a high degree of care to its guests. This was violated by
Hotel Oberoi Inter-continental, New Delhi when the defectively designed swimming pool left
a man dead. This made the hotel absolutely liable for payment of damages. The hefty
amounts taken from the guests by the hotel owners guaranteed them to pay exemplary

10 | P a g e
11 | P a g e

damages to the deceased or in any such further cases. It was decided that the plaintiff would
receive Rs. 50 lacs for the accident caused.

11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e

Conclusion

With the expansion of chemical based industries in India, increasing number of

enterprises store and use hazardous substances. These activities are not banned because they
have great social utility. Traditionally, the doctrine of strict liability was considered adequate
to regulate such hazardous enterprises. The doctrine allows for the growth of hazardous
industries, while ensuring that such enterprises will bear the burden of the damage they cause
when hazardous substance escapes. Shortly after the Bhopal gas leak tragedy of 1984, the
traditional doctrine was replaced by the rule of ‘absolute’ liability standard stricter than strict
liability. Absolute liability was first articulated by the Supreme Court and has since been
adopted by Parliament.

The principle of strict liability clearly states that a person who keeps hazardous
substances in his premises is responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner
and causes damages. This principle stands true if there was no negligence on the side of the
person keeping it and the burden of proof always lies on the defendant to prove how he is not
liable. Whereas the rule of absolute liability held that where an enterprise is engaged in a
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and it harm results to anyone on account of an
accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, the
enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate to all those who are affected by the
accident.

Both these rules follow the ‘no fault liability principle’, a principle in which the
defendant is held liable even if he is not directly or indirectly responsible for the damages
caused to the plaintiff

12 | P a g e
13 | P a g e

REFERENCES

Environmental Law and Policy in India, 2nd edn by Shyam Diwan

Environmental law By Gurdip Singh

Environmental Law By Leelakrishnan

Internet:

www.legalserviceindia,com

www.livelaw.com

www.environmen.india.com

13 | P a g e