AIBE XV — January 2021 — Q.72 (Environment (Protection) Act, 1986)

Share Q.72:

Q.72

Environmental Law Medium Knowledge-Based

Bare Act Environment (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

B In 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

C In 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

D A 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.

At a Glance

Subject Environmental Law

Difficulty Medium

Act Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

Section MC Mehta v. UOI (1987)

Answer (A) Knowledge-Based

Paper AIBE XV — January 2021

Navigation

← Q.71 ☰ All Questions Q.73 →

🎯 Mock Test

Progress in Paper

Q.72 100 questions

72% through paper

📖 Open Book — Reading Mode Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ↗ New Tab

📄

Mobile browsers only show page 1 of a PDF in-panel.
Open in a new tab to read all pages.

Open Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 →