https://kenanupa.com/bm3bVu0.P/3/pwvobtmGVoJEZODP0f2OM_TFkwz/NiT/YVyYL/TLYkxTOKTgMS1KNujuMo
top of page
Blue Sand White Beach Simple Watercolor Etsy Shop Banner.jpg

MC Mehta vs Union of India || 1987 AIR 1086 || Case Summary

 M.C. Mehta vs.  Union of India. Case summary



Smoke

 

Facts:

The incident was due to the leakage of oleum gas from Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, located in Delhi. Public interest lawyer M.C. Mehta presented a petition on public interest grounds based on the apprehension of safety and possible harm that might occur to residents nearby due to the leakage.

 

Legal Issue:

The issue here is whether Shriram Industries and the government failed to fulfil their duty to the safety and health of the persons concerned, especially in respect of hazardous industries and the principle of strict liability.

 

Legal Act:

It was a case on the principles of tort law in the context of strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher, which states that a person is liable for damage caused by dangerous activities or things regardless of the presence of negligence. It also fell under constitutional provisions of the right to life and personal liberty found under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

 

Argument:

This was further confirmed by the Supreme Court when it pronounced that industries which are involved with hazardous products must be kept under stern regulatory measures. The Supreme Court held that hazardous activities suffer strict liability and the industry must prove that it had taken all the cautionary measures. The state has to regulate the industry so that such incidents may not occur, and the citizenry is protected as per the judgment delivered by the court.

 

Judgment:

Such judgments declared that the Supreme Court must ensure the government provides far stronger regulations and safeguards to hazardous industries in the name of public health. It emphasized that industrialization cannot come to maturity and develop without taking cognizance of environmental concerns. The right to life, the apex court defined under Article 21, gave a citizen his/her right to a clean environment. This judgment was indeed pathbreaking and one that set the course for environmental law and industrial regulation in India

                                                                                                                                  -Anushka Shekhawat

                                                                                                                           Manipal University, Jaipur

 
 
 

Comentarios


Blue & White Marketing Agency Advertisement Poster.jpg

Ask us for a case summary

or ask us something

  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
bottom of page