Authored By: Anish
Panjab University, Hoshiarpur
Case Name: M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 20 December, 1986
Citation: 1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819 and 1987 (1) SCC 395
Case No: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 12739 OF 1985
Hon’ble Bench: C.J.I. P. N. Bhagwati, Justice Misra Rangnath, Justice M.M. Dutt, Justice K.N. Singh, Justice G. L. Oza
Petitioner: M.C. Mehta AND Anr.
Respondent: Union of India & Ors. (Sri Ram Food and Fertilizers)
Decided By: C.J.I. P. N. Bhagwati
Statutes & Provisions referred: Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 are the Statutes.
Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) of Constitution of India.
Consent orders; Absolute Liability; Public Interest Litigation (PIL); Environmental Management Plans and Fundamental Duties are other key concepts used in this case.
INTRODUCTION
In Indian environmental law, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India is a significant judgment and has been reviewed on 20 December 1986 by the Supreme Court of India, following a horrible incident that happened at the Shriram Food and Fertilizer company in Delhi (Kirti Nagar) where oleum, a very dangerous and poisonous gas, had escaped from the factory causing residents, surrounded the factory, to panic but also caused serious concerns regarding safety. Environmental lawyer M.C. Mehta, filed the case and wanted the Court to promote accountability and liability in industries for hazardous missions. For his exercises and concerns to ensure the environment, he is additionally known as the “green legal counselor of India”.
The Court in this case has noted that companies engaged in dangerous or hazardous activities are totally responsible and liable for any hazardous activity that is harmful, illegal, dangerous, against public safety even if the conduct was not negligent or wrongful. This was a major development towards encouraging those ‘relevant’ companies & industries to take safety concerns of the public seriously to protect and defend public life. The Court even stated that the Right to Life, under “Article 21 of the Constitution”1, would include the right to live in a clean and healthy environment, which further expanded India’s environmental protection laws.
BACKGROUNDS
The case began when M.C. Mehta, an environmental lawyer filed a “Public Interest Litigation (PIL)”2in Supreme Court under “Article 32 of the Indian Constitution”3, requesting an injunction, to close the Shriram Industrial Complex, which produced hazardous chemicals, or to relocate it due to it being located in a well-populated area of Delhi.
In December 1985, while the case was still pending, there was an oleum gas leak from Shriram’s factory (not long after the infamous Bhopal Gas Disaster) had caused about 30 people to be injured and created enormous apprehension of dangers.
The government had already conducted an inspection of the Shriram complex, found several hazards and had commissioned a special team to make safety recommendations and modifications as Shriram was producing a number of hazardous chemicals such as chlorine and caustic soda. Shriram also went to court to have the earlier orders set aside. Ultimately, in 1986 the Supreme Court of India evolved important legal notions of liability for enterprises for accidents and strengthen the meaning of the right to live in a clean and safe environment.
FACTS OF THE CASE
On December 4th, 1985 a major leak of oleum gas occurred from the Shriram plant in Delhi which had some impact on many people who suffered the effects including workers and persons in the neighbourhood. Tragically, one lawyer died from exposure to the gas. On December 6th, 1985 only two days after the major leak, a much smaller release occurred at the same facility. As a result, the Delhi administration on December 6th, issued the first of several notices under the law “(Section 133(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code which is now Section 177 of BNSS)”4. The notice directed Shriram to stop using harmful chemicals, to stop the potential risk of leakages and to either move these hazardous chemicals to a different place within the next few days or explain in court why it could not obey the notice.
The Supreme Court heard the ongoing matter the next day and considered this new notice at the same time. The Court remarked that because of the deficiencies, it would not be easy to deal with the situation immediately.
LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF M.C. MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA (1986)
The two Supreme Court judgments (February 17 and December 20, 1986) addressed many important legal issues:
In the first judgment, the Court largely addressed issues relating to:
– Whether Supreme Court could allow Shriram to restart its caustic chlorine plant, under Article 32.
– What safety conditions exist in operating a factory in a congested/crowded area. – Whether Environmental Courts should be established on a regional basis in India. The final judgment (by a five-judge Constitution Bench) addressed:
– Whether powers under Article 32 can be broadened by the Supreme Court. – Whether people affected by industrial accidents are entitled to compensation as a remedy under Article 32.
– Whether Shriram is considered a public authority under “Article 12”5.
– Whether Article 21 (right to life) applies to actions of private companies such as Shriram. – Whether a simple letter sent to a judge can become a bona fide public interest suit. – What kind of legal liability of hazardous industries have? when accidents occur.
– Whether the strict liability rule of the Rylands v. Fletcher case was applicable in the Indian context.
– Whether new legal rules could be created when old law does not provide for a resolution. – Whether Indian courts must apply foreign judgments or have the ability to use its discretion. ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES
Arguments made by the Petitioner
M.C. Mehta, who personally filed the case as a public interest matter was given permission by the Supreme Court to investigate the safety conditions at the Shriram chemical plant. For this, he created a special expert team known as the “Agarwal Committee”. This committee thoroughly inspected the caustic chlorine unit at Shriram and came to a serious conclusion that the plant had several safety flaws and was not prepared to handle emergencies effectively.
One of the committee’s main concerns was the location of the factory because it was set right in the middle of a densely populated residential area (Kirti Nagar) in Delhi. Because of this, the experts believed that even if Shriram followed all safety improvements recommended by various expert groups, the risk of danger to local people would still remain. They concluded that a complete elimination of hazards wasn’t realistically possible due to the crowded setting and nature of the chemicals handled.
Based on this strong evidence, M.C. Mehta argued in court that the caustic chlorine plant should not be allowed to restart under any condition, as public safety had to come first. The possibility of future leaks or accidents, was too high even with full compliance from the company.
Arguments by the Defendant
- Position of the Government (Additional Solicitor General):
The Additional Solicitor General, representing both the Delhi government and the central government, did not support the reopening of the Shriram plant. They said maybe the plant could re-open if the Supreme Court made determination that it is now safe but would require strict safety measures for both workers and the public.
- Shriram’s Position:
- Shriram’s lawyers argued that the factory should be permitted to start again because the company had followed all safety precautions/recommendations of expert committees such as the Manmohan Singh Committee and Nilay Choudhary Committee.
- They argued that the risk of another gas leak was now very minimal.
- They stated that if the plant remained closed (4,000 people) would lose their jobs and the drinking water in the whole of Delhi would suffer because the chlorine was necessary in the purification process.
- Shriram made clear that for the reopening of all their plants, it would only happen on the basis of full safety and maintenance.
- Objection on Constitutional Issues:
Shriram’s lawyer raised an objection about the serious legal issues, e.g., compensation – that happened after the original petition was filed, so the petition should be changed (amended) first. The Court agreed with the time line but rejected this objection because other groups had already initiated compensation petitions on behalf of the victims.
CASE LAWS USED IN THE JUDGEMENT
These cases were taken from other sites like Indian Kanoon, Bing and Law Teachers:
- Rylands v. Fletcher (1866)
This British case introduced “the principle of strict liability”6. It means that if a person keeps something dangerous on their land and it escapes, they are responsible for any harm caused even without negligence.
- Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar (1983)
The Supreme Court ruled that under Article 32, courts have the power to award compensation when a person’s fundamental rights are violated. In this case, a man was kept in jail for years even after being acquitted.
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)
This case expanded the scope of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Article 21 (Right to Life). It recognized that forced and bonded labor violated human dignity and the right to live with dignity.
- Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram (1975) and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981) These two cases clarified the meaning of “other authorities” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
They held that certain private bodies or corporations could be treated as “state” if they performed public functions or were controlled by the government.
- Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979) The Court laid down the functional test to decide if an organization is a “state” under Article 12. It focused on how much control the government has over the body and whether it performs public duties.
COURT ANALYSIS
On February 17 and December 20, 1986, the Supreme Court handed down two significant judgments with regard to fundamental legal and constitutional issues involving the safety of the environment and regulation of industry. The February judgment concerned whether the court could exercise its power under Article 32 and allow Shriram’s caustic chlorine plant to resume its operation, and what safety measures had to be applied for a crowded place. It also considered the idea of establishing regional Environmental Courts. The final judgment considered whether Article 32 could award compensation, whether a private company such as Shriram was bound by the Right to Life under Article 21, and whether Shriram could be considered as a public authority under Article 12. It explored whether courts were bound by foreign laws and whether new legal principles could develop in circumstances when old would not work. Ultimately, the Court will allow the Shriram to temporarily re-open the plant subject to conditions they determined would lead to safe occupation, giving strong warnings and expectations that non-compliance will result in the permission being cancelled.
JUDGEMENT
The matter was brought to the Supreme Court of India as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution which permits citizens to seek justice for violations of their Fundamental Rights. The petition sought to show the possibility of risks to life of humans from industries dealing with hazardous chemicals located in residential areas.
On 20th December 1986, the Supreme Court, led by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, the 14th Chief Justice of India, delivered its judgment in this landmark case. The court introduced a new “doctrine of absolute liability”7in what would be referred to as the tort of strict liability in British law (Rylands v. Fletcher). The court ruled that an industry that undertakes hazardous activities, such as producing toxic chemicals, “must accept all and wholly and fully responsibility” for harm to life and property.
In other words, those industries cannot dodge their responsibility by claiming to have manuals that direct the use of safe practices or that the mishap took place without negligence. In this case, there are no limitations, the well-being and safety of the public must supplant everything.
CONCLUSION
The M.C. Mehta vs Union of India case is a landmark judgment in India’s environmental law. After a toxic gas leak from Shriram’s factory, the Supreme Court ruled that any company involved in dangerous activities is fully responsible for any harm caused—no excuses, even without negligence. The Court created the “absolute liability” rule, ensuring people’s safety and environment come first. It also expanded the meaning of the right to life under Article 21 to include living in a clean, healthy environment. This case helped make industries more careful and made environmental protection a stronger part of Indian law.
REFERENCE(S):
The Articles, Section, Principle and Doctrine used in this above case:
ARTICLES
Article 21: https://lawbhoomi.com/article-21-of-constitution-of-india/
Article 32: https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-32-remedies-for-enforcement-of rights-conferred-by-this-part/
Article 12: https://blog.ipleaders.in/state-article-12-constitution-india/
WRIT JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT (ARTICLE 32) AND HIGH COURT (ARTICLE 226) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Public Interest Litigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest_litigation_in_India
SECTION UNDER BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 177 BNSS: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/42474407/
DOCTRINE AND PRINCIPLE
Principle of Strict Liability: https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-strict-liability-absolute-liability/ Doctrine of Absolute Liability: https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-strict-liability-absolute-liability/
1 Aishwarya Agarwal “Article 21 of Constitution of India” (Law Bhoomi; 03 January, 2025) < https://lawbhoomi.com/article-21-of-constitution-of-india/ > accessed on 27 September, 2025
2 Wikipedia “Public Interest Litigation” < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest_litigation_in_India > accessed on 27 September, 2025
3 Constitution of India “ Part III Article 32” < https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-32-remedies-for enforcement-of-rights-conferred-by-this-part/ > accessed on 27 September, 2025
4Indian Kanoon “Section 177 BNSS” < https://indiankanoon.org/doc/42474407/ > accessed on 28 September, 2025
5Ipleaders “Article 12 of Constitution of India” < https://blog.ipleaders.in/state-article-12-constitution-india/ > accessed on 28 September, 2025
6Ipleaders “The principle of strict and absolute liability” < https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-strict-liability-absolute liability/ > accessed on 29 September, 2025
7Ibid
