M.C. Mehta and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. & Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries

Nature of the Case

These cases were brought before the Supreme Court of India raising questions under Article 21 and 32 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner sought to prevent a Delhi chlorine plant, which was located in a densely populated area, from reopening after recent gas leaked from another plant owned by the respondent. The Supreme Court allowed the plant to reopen after imposing strict compliance safety guidelines. In the subsequent case, the Supreme Court imposed the doctrine of absolute liability for corporations engaging in industries that are hazardous or inherently dangerous to life and health. In subsequent related litigation about the leak, the Supreme Court recognized the right to a healthy environment as part of its interpretation of the Indian Constitution.

Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes

The courts have continued to build on this pronouncement and affirm the fundamental right to life and quality of life, including a healthy environment, as well as the absolute liability of hazardous industries for any harm caused to surrounding communities.

Significance of the Case

Activists and lawyers in India consider this case seminal for environmental advocacy in India. First, it created a precedent for corporations to comply with stringent safety measures. Second, it eliminated corporations’ ability to hide behind defenses such as “act of God” by substituting strict liability with absolute liability. It strengthened mechanisms for corporate accountability by also making the amount of compensation owed proportionate to the size and magnitude of the corporation. Indeed, as noted by legal scholar Kakoli Nath, “Shriram Food and Fertilizers is one of India’s largest and richest manufacturing establishments”.

The impacts of such reform can still be seen today. For instance, in 2020, the Court held the corporation LG Polymers absolutely liable for restoration of the environment and compensation to victims after a hazardous gas escaped from the company’s factory, killing eleven people, injuring 1,000 others and significantly harming the surrounding environment and habitat.

Additionally, the historic nature of this case gave rise to various legislative efforts to protect fundamental rights to life and health as well as to a healthy environment. For instance, the judgment propelled the creation of the Environment Protection Act of 1986 and was a guiding force in the creation of the Public Liability Insurance Act of 1991, which heightened regulation of corporations and provided many victims of pollution with relief.

For their contributions, special thanks to ESCR-Net member: the Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy (PHRGE) at Northeastern University.