M. C. Mehta v. Union of India | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | Supreme Court of India |
Full case name | M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. |
Decided | 20 December 1986 |
Citation | 1987 SCR (1) 819; AIR 1987 965 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | P.N. Bhagwati (Chief Justice), G.L. Misra Rangnath Oza, M.M. Dutt, K.N. Singh |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | P.N. Bhagwati |
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), also known as Oleum Gas Leak Case, is a landmark case of environmental jurisprudence in India, known for establishing the principle of absolute liability and the concept of deep pockets. [1] [2]
The case originated in the aftermath of oleum gas leak from a factory owned by Shriram Food and Fertilisers Industries in Delhi, resulting in death of one person and hospitalisation of several others. This gas leak, occurring soon after the infamous Bhopal gas leak of 1984, created a lot of panic and raised concerns about lack of regulatory oversight. The Supreme Court of India, taking cognizance of the matter under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, heard the petition filed by M. C. Mehta, a prominent environmental lawyer and activist seeking to hold the company liable and establish stricter environmental safeguards. [3]
The foundational principles established in this case have been incorporated into various environmental regulations and statutes, including the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The principle of absolute liability has also influenced the development of the doctrine of "polluter pays," further established in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. in 1996. [1] [2] [4]
There was only one preliminary objection filed by the counsel for the defendant, and this was that the Court should not proceed to decide these constitutional issues since there was no claim for compensation originally made in the writ petition and these issues could not be said to arise in the writ petition. However, the Court, while rejecting this objection, said that though it is undoubtedly true that the petitioner could have applied for amendment of the writ petition to include a compensation claim but merely because he did not do so, the applications for compensation cannot be thrown out. These applications for compensation are for enforcement of the fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and while dealing with such applications we cannot adopt a hyper-technical approach that would defeat the ends of justice.
The Supreme Court made the following observation:
Thus the High Court was directed to nominate one or more Judges as may be necessary for the purpose of trying such actions so that they may be expeditiously disposed of. Simply because the gas caused death and many people were hospitalized.