tortuous principles of strict liability under the Rylands vs Fletcher.shifting of caustic chlorine and sulphuric acid plants

Traditionally, only a person whose rights were injured was entitled to seek remedy. But that traditional view of standing prevented the grievances of poor from being heard by court. They were denied access to justice because of their poverty and the poor and under-privileged suffered economic reprisals from the dominant sections of the community. In 1981, a seven Judge bench of the Supreme Court gave a definite opinion regarding the standing and enlarged the scope of what has been termed as “representative standing”. The court held that it may therefore now be taken as a well established that where a legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a person or to determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority or any such legal wrong or legal injury or legal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability of socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member of the public can maintain an application for appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case of any fundamental right of such person or determinate class of persons, in the Supreme Court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons..

The above decision enlarged the scope of the litigation and a large number of cases came to the Supreme Court of India to protect and preserve the ecology and environment. It is interesting to note some of the decisions of the Supreme Court of India which gave various directions to help protect the environment from further degradation. But for the directions by the Supreme Court in these cases, there would have been large scale deforestation and the air and water would have been polluted to such an role played by the Supreme Court of India in protecting the environment can be glanced through some of its decisions.

One Mr. M.C. Mehta, a lawyer practicing in the Supreme court filed series of public interest litigations. One such case concerned shifting of caustic chlorine and sulphuric acid plants located in a thickly populated area in Delhi. From that very plant, oleum gas leaked out and it caused some panic among the neighbourhood residents. The  court expanded the scope of Article 32 and said that in appropriate cases the court can award compensation to the affected party. The court also said that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, 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 tortuous principles of strict liability under the Rylands vs Fletcher.