Bare ActEnvironment (Protection) Act, 1986·MC Mehta v. UOI (1987)
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 (Sri Ram Fertilizers case) the court held that:
✓In escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortious principle of strict liability.
Answer
BIn escape of a dangerous animal the owner is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-a- vis the tortious principle of strict liability
CIn escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortious principle of strict liability
DA company or a corporation is not a state and hence not liable for leak of toxic gas affecting the health of the people
📋
Explanation & Strategy
Click any section to expand · only one open at a time
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) — the Shriram Fertilisers case — established the doctrine of Absolute Liability for hazardous industries. Unlike Rylands v. Fletcher strict liability (which has exceptions), absolute liability has no exceptions whatsoever.