1. 1
PROJECT REPORT & CRITICAL ANALYSIS
-PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
M.C MEHTA
V.
UNION OF INDIA
AIR 1987 SC 965
(Shriram food fertilizer case)
Coram: 3
P.N Bhagwati, C.J.I
D.P Madon & G.L Oza, J.J
BY
ANDREA JOHNSON
ROLL NO-13
SECOND LL.B (3YRS)
M.G.M LAW COLLEGE

2. 2
INDEX
SR.NO TOPIC PAGE.NO SIGN
1 AN INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC 3-9
INTEREST LITIGATION
2 FACTS OF THE CASE 10-11
3 ISSUES INVOLVED 12
4 PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER 13-14
5 PRAYER OF THE RESPONDENT 15-16
6 JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE 17-21
7 CONCLUSION,CRITIQUE & 22-27
SUGGESTIONS
8 REFERENCE 28

3. 3
“It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”
-Voltaire (1694-1778)
AN INTRODUCTION
TO
PUBLIC INTREST LITIGATION
Public interest litigation is popularly known as PIL and is defined as litigation conducted in the
interest of the Public. Justice S.Awasthy contemplating the concept of Public Interest
Litigation once said that “Public Interest litigation is the name given to the right of any
member of the public having sufficient interest to maintain an action for judicial redress
for public injury arising from breach of public duty or violation of some provisions of the
constitution or the law and seek enforcement of public duty and observance of such
constitutional or legal provisions.”
It is this principle that forms the core of our constitution and reaffirms the new found
magnetism of the concept of PIL as a silent social revolution within the judicial process. A
strategic arm of the legal aid movement, it brings justice within the reach of millions of poor,
illiterate people who are oblivious of their rights as a citizen of a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular
and Democratic country.
The evolution of Public Interest Litigation in India is the result of a conscious effort made by
eminent jurists like Justice P.N Bhagwati and Justice Krishna Iyer who were dissatisfied with the
traditional concept of ‘locus standi’ which meant that only an aggrieved party could knock the
doors of justice and seek remedy for his grievance, and a person who has not been personally
aggrieved cannot seek redress from the courts of justice as a proxy or on behalf of an aggrieved
person. The relaxation of the rule of ‘locus standi’ paved way for a new wave of judicial
activism in a system which previously embraced a rudimentary form of litigation that catered to
a class of private vested interests.
The Supreme court of India woke up to this new found awareness during the post emergency
period in the 1980’s.The juristic revolution of the 80’s converted the apex court of India to the

4. 4
supreme court of India for all citizens. The concept of public interest litigation was spearheaded
by Justice P.N Bhagwati who through many landmark decisions, and alterations made to the
“rule of standing” enabled citizens, public interest groups, NGO’s and consumer groups to seek
legal redress in cases where the interest of the common man or sections of the society are at
stake.
The Supreme Court encouraged this juristic revolution by entertaining writs filed in public
interest. This practice of viewing letters as petitions on an ‘adhoc’ basis i.e. initiating an action
for a particular cause at hand without due consideration of wider application was established by
the supreme court in the ‘Judges transfer case’- S.P Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC
149, whereby the court held that a “public interest litigation can be filed by any member of
public having sufficient interest for public injury arising from the violation of legal rights
so as to obtain judicial redress”. It implied that one could bring an action under PIL for
the enforcement of public duty against a statutory or public authority or to acquire the
observance of constitutional provisions.”
Letters and telegrams stating grievances or legal injuries endured by a person or written on
behalf of a class of persons who are physically, socially and economically challenged were tried
and disposed of as writ petitions under article 32 of the Constitution of India. Article 32
guarantees and provides safeguards to the enforcement of fundamental rights contained in our
constitution. It has empowered the Supreme court to issue directions and orders in the nature of
writs such as ‘Habeas corpus’, ‘Mandamus’, ‘Prohibition’, ‘Quo warranto’ and
‘Certiorari’.
The writ of ‘Mandamus’ is considered to be the most important from the point of view of Public
Interest Litigation since it is a writ of a most extensive remedial nature. ‘Mandamus’ literally
means ‘we command’ and is basically used to compel performance of public duties and enforce
private rights when they are withheld by public officers.
Justice Bhagwati being a strong defender for the cause of PIL observed in the case of Bandhua
Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, the context of article 32 and public interest litigation in the
following words “When a person or class of persons to whom legal injury caused by reason
of violation of fundamental right Is unable to approach the court for judicial redress on
account of poverty or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, any

5. 5
member of public acting bona fide can move the court for relief under article 32, so that
the fundamental rights may become more meaningful not only for the rich and the well to
do who have the means to approach the court but also for the large masses of people who
are living a life of want and destitution and who are by reason of lack of awareness,
assertiveness and resources unable to seek judicial redress. The government and its officers
must welcome public interest litigation because it would provide them an occasion to
examine whether the poor and the downtrodden are getting their social and economic
entitlements or whether they are continuing to remain victims of deception and
exploitation at the hands of the stronger and more powerful sections of the community.”
Examining the power of courts in issuing writs in the context of the constitution, Article 226
highlights the power given to the high courts in entertaining a PIL that has been brought forth
through any of the writs mentioned in article 32. The high court has been given very wide
discretionary powers in issuing writs, but it must be exercised keeping in mind certain
recognized grounds of limitations such as exercising the powers conferred to issue writs within
the areas of its jurisdiction and that the person to whom the High court is empowered to issue the
writ must be within this territorial jurisdiction. Even though the power of the High court under
article 226 are discretionary in nature and is outside the purview of enforcement of fundamental
rights, the court must use it with caution and should subject itself to self-imposed limitations.
From the point of view of a Public Interest Litigation, the powers conferred on the High court act
as an instrument to assist the Supreme Court in narrowing down and verifying the veracity of all
PIL petitions which has been subject to abuse in recent times.
One can therefore say that the first reason for liberalizing the rule of standing is that it is
necessary to secure fundamental rights to the underprivileged of the country. The second reason
is that in the modern welfare state, individual rights and duties are giving place to collective
rights and duties of class or groups of persons. For example, the discharge of effluents in a lake
or river, emission of noxious gas, and increasing public transport fares, result in public injury
and is distinguished from a private injury. In such cases, every member of the public should have
standing to challenge the action; otherwise the injury would go without any redressal to the
issue. The third reason is that “it is only by liberalizing the rule of locus standi that it is
possible to effectively police the corridors of powers and prevent violations of law. Further,
if no one will have standing to challenge cases of public wrong or public injury, then there
will be no rule of law." Therefore it is now a settled principle that whenever there is a public

6. 6
wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the state or a public authority which is
contrary to law, any member of the public acting bonafide and having sufficient interest can
maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury.
The relaxed and liberalized approach towards the “rule of standing” or ‘locus standi’ through
PIL has broadened the scope of judicial activism and the role of social interest groups who have
committed themselves with much fervor to the cause of under trials, victims of environmental
manipulation, women and children, the physically challenged etc thus assisting the courts in
widening its arms of justice and fairness.
However, this liberalizing of the concept of ‘locus standi’ has also brought about a flip-side to
the device of PIL-its misuse. Recent cases of PIL point out to a large number of frivolous or self-
interest motivated petitions filed in the disguise of PIL which adds to the woes of an already
burdened judiciary. Being an inexpensive legal remedy, the abuse of PIL is now rampant with
many social activists observing that it is fast becoming a handy tool of harassment which is in
contradiction to the true nature and motive of public interest litigation.
The Court, in its efforts to make the process fool-proof ensures and verifies the authenticity of
the contents of petition that has been filed under the guise of a PIL before commencing the
proceedings. It also appoints an amicus curie i.e. a friend of the court who would usually be a
specialist in the field that the case is related to, or is a social scientist, or an officer of court who
would make the necessary inquiry into the matter or conduct an investigation and submit a
detailed report to the court thus assisting the court with its judgment. The court itself has framed
certain parameters that act as guidelines when it comes to the management and disposal of PIL
petitions.
Therefore, one can say that a PIL includes
 Any legal wrong or injury may be both the violation of fundamental rights and legal rights
 Any victim of illegal injury may be a person or a class of persons unable to claim relief
before the court themselves due to a socially or economically disadvantaged position.
 Any member of public or the society can file a petition under a PIL on behalf of such a
person or class of persons

7. 7
 The Supreme Court can be moved under a PIL only for the violation of fundamental rights
whereas the high court can be moved for the violation of any legal right, fundamental or
otherwise.
 The court may issue an order or writ for redressal of grievances that may require affirmative
action or continuous monitoring.
The court may also direct the payment of compensation to the persons wronged in appropriate
cases.
PIL differs from ordinary litigation in the sense that a suit is not brought forth in a PIL to enforce
an individual’s legal right but is intended to promote and defend the interest of public. The scope
of a lawsuit under PIL is not confined to any specific violation such as personal injury, or breach
of contract but it is to be determined by the courts as to what should be entertained as a PIL. The
relief is more often than not negotiated by the parties to a PIL lawsuit than being improvised by
the court. The court’s involvement in the case does not end at the pronouncement of the
judgment but requires constant and active monitoring by the Judiciary and in most cases;
committees are set up to supervise the implementation of remedial measures.
Cases ranging from human rights and constitutional laws to environmental protection and
consumer protection have all benefited from the Public interest machinery whose success
depends on the awakened, public spirited people and organizations that are independent from the
government and are genuinely concerned about the welfare of people. The downtrodden,
underprivileged and other socially and economically challenged classes of people have found a
new voice through PIL which must not be put out.
The role of PIL in environment related issues is also noteworthy. Governmental agencies had
failed to effectively enforce environmental laws and other principles outlined by international
conventions such as the United Nations conference on human environment also known as the
Stockholm conference. The Indian constitution had introduced the principles of environmental
protection by the 42 amendment to the constitution in the form of articles 48(A) and 51A (g).
In the words of the constitution, article 48(A) part of the directive principles of state policy
considers that “the state shall Endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.” Whereas article 51A (g) part of the
chapter on fundamental duties obliges every citizen of the country “to protect and improve

8. 8
the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have
compassion for living creatures.”
Even though the constitution laid down these duties and obligations for the protection of our
environment, the non-compliance of statutory norms by polluters resulted in a widespread
acceleration of environmental degradation. Water and air pollution in particular were having
adverse effects on public health and this prompted environmentalists, NGO’s and citizens who
were subject to such pollution to approach the courts, particularly the higher judiciary, for
suitable remedies. In the course of time, the courts through various PIL’s recognized the
importance of giving sustainable development its due consideration and along with it also
observed the “polluter pays principle” and “precautionary principle” which came to be the
highlight of most environmental cases. The relaxation of the ‘rule of standing’ led to the
possibility of having several petitioners for the same environmental issue or disaster thus helping
the court to view the issue from an environmental perspective instead of viewing it as a mere
dispute between two parties. It also brought back the focus sharply to the conflict between the
protection of environment and development, where the concept of sustainable development
gained prominence.
PIL’s were found to be more efficient in dealing with environmental issues as these were more
concerned with the rights of the community as a whole than individual interests. The judiciary in
its quest to find suitable solutions to environmental issues within the framework of Public
Interest litigation looked to constitutional provisions to provide the courts with the required
jurisdiction to redress the issues more specifically. Article 142 empowered the Supreme Court to
mould its decisions specific to these issues which is instrumental in achieving complete justice.
Article 21 which is Right to Life is often brought up in environmental PIL’s which is to be
interpreted in the right sense according to the facts of the case. The court in this context has
observed that “The right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution,
and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of
life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has
the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution…”
The Bhopal gas tragedy, Shriram food & fertilizer case, Taj trapezium case, Ganga water
pollution case, Narmada bachao andolan case and Vellore citizen’s welfare forum case are
all examples of environmental litigations that covered a wide range of issues that brought forth

9. 9
judicial activism to the fore by PIL. It was characterized by a non-adversarial approach that laid
emphasis on enlisting the help of amicus curiae, the appointment of committees to investigate
and monitor schemes for the improvisation, protection and prevention of environmental issues,
and dealt with the issue of detailed interim orders in the form of continuous mandamus under
articles 32 and 226 of the Indian constitution by the supreme court and high court respectively.
In the words of Justice Bhagwati, "public interest litigation is essentially a co-operative or
collaborative effort on the part of the petitioner, the State or public authority and the court
to secure observance of the constitutional or legal rights, benefits and privileges conferred
upon the vulnerable sections of the community and to reach social justice to them. Public
interest litigation is a part of the legal aid movement which is intended to bring justice
within the reach of the poor masses, who constitute the low visibility area of humanity.
Thus, through the device of public interest litigation, the Supreme Court is trying to fulfill
a constitutional obligation that the large masses of people belonging to the deprived and
exploited sections of humanity may be able to realize and enjoy the socio-economic rights
granted to them and these rights may become meaningful for them instead of remaining
mere empty hopes."
Through PIL, Social activism has been revived and has been renewed with a vigor that was
hitherto absent from the judicial system of our country. At a time when corruption is rife and the
system seems incompetent to deal with all the adverse effects of a divided government and a
burdened judiciary that is day by day evolving itself into an entity that is against the democratic
ideal India envisioned itself in, the PIL comes through to knock the doors of justice becoming the
voice of the common man, the voice of the people who make this country, a country.

10. 10
FACTS OF THE CASE
AIR 1987 SC 965
M.C Mehta v. Union of India
 M.C Mehta, the petitioner in this case was an advocate and leading consumer activist. He
filed a public interest litigation requesting the courts to lay down the norms for determining
the liability of enterprises engaged in the manufacture and sale of hazardous products and
the closure of ‘Shriram’ on the ground that it was hazardous to the community.
 The enterprise in question is Shriram food & fertilizers industries (referred to as Shriram)
which is a caustic chlorine plant run by the Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd commissioned in 1949.
 During the pendency of the petition filed by M.C Mehta, the Delhi administration pursuant
to a question raised in the parliament about the hazardous nature of the these enterprises
appointed an expert committee. This committee headed by Mr. Manmohan Singh made an
extensive inquiry and submitted a detailed report to the government outlining various
recommendations to minimize the hazards that complied with pollution control and safety
measures.
 On the 4th of December, 1985, a major leakage of Oleum gas took place from one of the
units within the plant, affecting not only its employees but also those who resided around
the plant. This occurred during the pendency of the first petition requesting the closure of
the caustic chlorine plant on account of its hazardous nature.
 Two days later, on the 6th of December 1985, another leakage took place although a minor
one when Oleum gas leaked out again from the joints of a pipe in the plant.

11. 11
 The Delhi administration had immediately responded to the crisis by issuing an order dated
6th dec 1985 passed by the district magistrate, Delhi directing Shriram to stop the
manufacture and processing of hazardous and lethal chemical and gases.
 A second set of writ petitions were filed by the Petitioner under Article 32 of the
Constitution, which provides for a writ against the State in case of breach of fundamental
rights and to entertain appropriate compensation claims. The court directed two teams of
experts, namely the Nilay Singh Choudhary committee appointed by the court and the
Agarwal committee appointed by the petitioner to ascertain whether the recommendations
of the Manmohan Singh committee (set up during the pendency of the first petition that
requested the closure of the shriram units) has been implemented in accordance with the
pollution control and safety measures.
 A third committee, the Seturam committee was also appointed by the Lt.Governor of
Delhi to carry out an on-the-spot inspection and make its recommendations.
 Persons affected by the gas leak (which in this case were nearly 2 lakh people within a
three kilometer radius) were also allowed to file compensation claims within a given period
of time with the Chief metropolitan magistrate.

12. 12
ISSUES INVOLVED
 The first issue in contention was whether the caustic chlorine plant of Shriram should be
allowed to restart the plant and if so, subject to what conditions keeping in mind that the
operation of the plant should no longer pose a hazard or risk to the community.
 The second issue brought forth to discuss was whether Shriram which manufactures and is
engaged in the production of hazardous substances at the cost of environment and human
life should be held absolutely liable.
 The third issue is whether ‘Shriram’ could be considered to be a ‘state’ within the ambit of
article 12.
 The fourth issue raised was whether the applications for compensation filed under article
21 is available against Shriram which is owned by Delhi Cloth Mills Limited, a private
corporation and which is engaged in an industry vital to public interest and with potential
to affect the life and health of the people.

13. 13
PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER
1. Whether Shriram should be allowed to restart its operation of the caustic chlorine
plant which poses a potential health hazard to the community which is a violation of
fundamental rights under article 21 of the Indian constitution i.e. right to life.
On behalf of the petitioner, the first argument to be presented is that Shriram, a private
enterprise that was engaged in the operation of a caustic chlorine plant should be subject
to closure of all its units as it posed a hazard or risk to the community that was a violation
of the right to life and personal liberty which is a fundamental right guaranteed under
article 21. Although the constitution does not explicitly mention the right to health, its
justification is based on article 21.The directive principles of state policy under article 39,
41, 42 and 47 which deal with healthcare provides the state with a mandate to raise
public health standards, and although they aren’t enforceable, they do act as guidelines
for the state to observe. The petitioner vehemently argued that the court must not permit
shriram to restart its caustic chlorine plant because there was always a element of hazard
or risk to the community in its operation. He urged that that chlorine is a dangerous gas
and even if utmost care is taken, the possibility of its accidental leakage cannot be ruled
out and therefore it is imprudent to run the risk of allowing the caustic chlorine plant to
be restarted. The right to life under article 21 should be interpreted to incorporate right to
health and Shriram which is engaged in the production of hazardous substances injurious
to life and the health of the community at large must not be allowed to restart and be
subject to closure unless it is subject to strict guidelines for its operation.
2. The second issue on behalf of the petitioner is whether Shriram can be held
absolutely liable having engaged itself in the manufacture of hazardous substances
that is injurious to the community at large.
In regards to the second issue of determining the liability of Shriram, which is engaged
in hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, if by reason of an accident occurring in
such industry, persons die or are injured, shouldn’t it be considered to be held absolutely
liable? Shriram is an enterprise that is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous
industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in
the factory and residing in the surrounding areas and owes an absolute and non-delegable

14. 14
duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous
or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken.
3. The third issue is whether Shriram is a “state” under article 12 so as to hold it
liable under article 21 for violation of fundamental rights.
The next issue that must be brought forth is whether Shriram can be considered to be a
“state” within the meaning of article 12 so as to subject it to comply with compensation
claims for the violation of article 21 which is a fundamental right. The activity of
producing chemicals and fertilizers is deemed by the State to be an industry of vital
public interest according to state industrial policy whose public import necessitates that
the activity should be ultimately carried out by the State itself, in the interim period
with State support and under State control; private corporations may also be permitted
to supplement the State effort. Under this interpretation, even private corporations
manufacturing chemicals and fertilizers can be said to be engaged in activities which
are as fundamental to the Society as to be necessarily considered government functions.
Therefore Shriram must be considered to be a state under article 12 and be held liable
to pay compensation. It would also be imperative to observe that the powers granted to
the Supreme Court under article 32 is not only preventive but also remedial in nature
and has the right to provide relief against the breach of fundamental rights and it must
be observed in this case.
4. The fourth issue is whether Claims for compensation against shriram can be
claimed under article 21 for the violation of fundamental rights stated in the
aforesaid article of the constitution.
On account of the injury caused to the people due to the Gas leak, claims for
compensation must be entertained, as these applications for compensation are for
enforcement of the fundamental right of right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution. Shriram must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted
with the highest standards of safety and if any harm or injury results on account of such
activity, the enterprise must be held absolutely liable to compensate for such harm. And
since such harm and injury has already resulted and has affected the lives of its
workmen and people living in the vicinity of the plant, it should be held liable for such
appropriate compensation as the court deems fit in order to secure justice for it

15. 15
PRAYER OF THE RESPONDENT
1. The first defense put forth by the respondent is with regards to whether the caustic
chlorine plant should be allowed to restart or not.
The defense counsel had emphatically argued against the permanent closure of the caustic
chlorine plant by stating that if the plant was not allowed to restart its operation, it would not
be possible to operate the plants manufacturing the down stream products, the resultant being
that more than 4000 workers would be thrown out of employment. It was also stated that
since shriram had complied with all the recommendations of the Manmohan Singh
committee and nilay Singh choudhary committee, the possibility of risk or hazard to the
community had been considerably minimized and brought to nil, and therefore the caustic
chlorine plant must be permitted to restart its operation.
2. The second defense that the counsel has pleaded is that Shriram should not be
considered to be a “state” within the ambit of article 12 of the Indian constitution.
On behalf of the respondent, the issue which is brought forth is whether it should be
considered to be a state under article 12 of the constitution, so as to subject it to the liability
of compensation under article 21 of the constitution which provides for remedial measures
for the breach of fundamental rights. The defense would like to argue that Shriram an
enterprise owned by Delhi Cloth mills Ltd is a private corporation which cannot be said to
come within the purview of article 12 that defines what could be included to be a “state”.
Article 12 explicitly mentions that the state does not include a non-statutory body exercising
no statutory powers, for example, a company, unless made an agent of the government, A
judicial or quasi judicial authority and Private bodies having no statutory powers or not being
supported by any state act or not being an agency of the state.

16. 16
3. The third defense pleaded by the defense counsel is that Shriram could not be held
absolutely liable to pay compensation as claims for compensation weren’t filed in the
original writ petition and since the defense has already pleaded that shriram cannot be
considered to be a “state” under article 12, it cannot be held liable to compensate the
victims.
The third defense argued on behalf of the respondent with regards to its liability to pay
compensation, the enterprise in its defense would like to state that Court should not proceed
to decide these constitutional issues since there was no claim for compensation originally
made in the writ petition and these issues could not be said to arise on the writ petition. And
since, the defense has already prayed to the honorable court that Shriram cannot be included
in the definition of article 12 of the constitution, it should not be held liable to pay
compensation.

17. 17
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
CORAM: 3
P.N BHAGWATI, C.J.I, D.P Madon & G.L Oza, J.J
Judgment delivered by J.P.N Bhagwati, C.J.I
a. SCOPE OF ARTICLE 12- The court while considering the availability of Article 21
against a private corporation engaged in an activity which has potential to affect the life and
health of the people traced the evolution of the Doctrine of State Action to ascertain whether
the defendants in this case fall under the definition of the term state, as provided under
Article 12, or not. The Court also looked into the Industrial Policy of the Government. Under
the Industrial Policy Resolution 1956 industries were classified into three categories having
regard to the part which the State would play in each of them. The first category was to be
the exclusive responsibility of the State. The second category comprised those industries
which would be progressively State owned and in which the State would therefore generally
take the initiative in establishing new undertakings but in which private enterprise would also
be expected to supplement the effort of the State by promoting and development
undertakings either on its own or with State participation. The third category would include
all the remaining industries and their future development would generally be left to the
initiative and enterprise of the private sector. If an analysis of the declarations in the Policy
Resolutions and the Act is undertaken, we find that the activity of producing chemicals and
fertilizers is deemed by the State to be an industry of vital public interest, whose public
import necessitates that the activity should be ultimately carried out by the State itself, in the
interim period with State support and under State control, private corporations may also be
permitted to supplement the State effort. The argument of the applicants on the basis of this
premise was that in view of this declared industrial policy of the State, even private
corporations manufacturing chemicals and fertilizers can be said to be engaged in activities
which are as fundamental to the Society as to be necessarily considered government
functions.
b. LIABILITY-The court while determining the liability of shriram considered whether a
new doctrine of liability should be evolved to include such industries that engage themselves

18. 18
in the production of hazardous substances or should the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher apply.
The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was evolved in the year 1866 and it provides that a person
who for his own purposes being on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to
do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril and, if he fails to do so, is prima facie liable
for the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. The liability under this rule is
strict and it is no defense that the thing escaped without that person's willful act, default or
neglect or even that he had no knowledge of its existence. This rule laid down a principle of
liability that if a person who brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything
likely to do harm and such thing escapes and does damage to another, he is liable to
compensate for the damage caused. Of course, this rule applies only to non-natural user of
the land and it does not apply to things naturally on the land or where the escape is due to an
act of God and an act of a stranger or the default of the person injured or where the thing
which escapes is present by the consent of the person injured or in certain cases where there
is statutory authority.
This rule evolved in the 19th Century at a time when all these developments of science and
technology had not taken place cannot afford any guidance in evolving any standard of
liability consistent with the constitutional norms and the needs of the present day economy
and social structure. The court need not feel inhibited by this rule which was evolved in this
context of a totally different kind of economy. Law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs
of the fast changing society and keep abreast with the economic developments taking place
in the country. The court commented “We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be
constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of that in
any other foreign country. We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a
hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health
and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas
owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm
results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the
activity which it has undertaken”.
The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest
standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be
absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to
say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence
on its part.

19. 19
“We would therefore hold 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 resulting, for example, 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-à-vis the
tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.”
“We would also like to point out that the measure of compensation in the kind of cases
referred to in the preceding paragraph must be co-related to the magnitude and
capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have a deterrent effect. The
larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of
compensation payable by it for the harm caused on account of an accident in the
carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by the enterprise”
c. POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32 -The court examining
the scope of article 32 in this case commented that under Article 32(l) of the Constitution, the
supreme court is free to devise any procedure appropriate for the particular purpose of the
proceeding, namely, enforcement of a fundamental right and also has the power to issue
whatever direction, order or writ as may be necessary in a given case including all incidental
and ancillary power necessary for the enforcement of a fundamental right. The power of the
Supreme Court is not only injunctive in ambit, that is preventing the infringement of
fundamental rights, but it is also remedial in scope and provides relief against a breach of the
fundamental rights already committed. In the circumstances, the Court has the power to grant
compensation in appropriate cases. The Court also said that compensation could be awarded
against Shriram Food and Fertilizer Corporation thereby bringing private corporations within
the purview of Article 32 of the Constitution.

20. 20
The court in its aforesaid judgment on the case also ordered certain conditions that would
have to be observed by Shriram and suggestions of a general nature in the following manner:
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT:
1.The court observed that it was clear by the reports of the various expert committees that
Shriram had been negligent in the operation and maintenance of the caustic chlorine plant
and did not take the necessary measures for improving the design and quality of the plant,
equipment and installing adequate safety devices and instruments with a view to ensuring the
maximum safety of the workers and the community living in the vicinity and that the glaring
deficiencies that were brought out in the writ petition compelled the management of shriram
to carry out various alterations and adopted various measures in accordance with the
recommendations by the Manmohan Singh committee and nilay Singh choudhary committee.
Therefore the court thinks it’s imperative to appoint an expert committee that would monitor
the operation and maintenance of the plant and equipment and ensure the continued
implementation of the recommendations of these two committees. This committee appointed
by the court shall inspect the caustic chlorine plant at least once in a fortnight and examine
whether the recommendations of the aforesaid two committees are being scrupulously
implemented by the management.
2. Every worker in the caustic chlorine plant should be properly trained and instructed in
regard to the functioning of the specific plant and equipment in which he is working and he
should also be educated and informed as to what precautions should be taken and in case of
leakage of chlorine gas, what steps should be taken to control and contain such leakage.
3. Loud speakers shall be installed all around the factory premises for giving timely warning
and adequate instructions to the people residing in the vicinity in case of leakage of chlorine
gas. The management shall maintain proper vigilance in the plant.
4.The management of Shriram will deposit in this court a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as and by way
of security for payment of compensation claims made by or on behalf of the victims of oleum
gas if and to the extent to which such compensation claims are held to be well founded. The
management of Shriram will also furnish a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the registrar
of this court for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs which shall be encashed by the registrar wholly or in

21. 21
part in case there is any escape of chlorine gas within a period of three years from the date of
this judgment and would be utilized towards the payment of compensation to the victims of
chlorine gas, the quantum of compensation being determinable by the district judge.
5.The court observed that there is an increasing number of cases based on environmental
pollution and ecological destruction that requires the input of neutral scientific expertise to
assist decision making and therefore under the circumstances urged the government of India
to set up an ecological sciences research group consisting of independent, professionally
competent experts in different branches of science and technology that could act as an
information bank for the court and would encourage the government to consider setting up
environment courts on a regional basis with one professional judge and two experts drawn
from the ecological sciences research group.
6. The court also expressed gratitude to the petitioner for taking the bold initiative in
bringing this public interest litigation to the court without which no improvisations would
have been sought or implemented by Shriram and the community would have been subject to
continued risk from the operation of the plant. The court directed Shriram to pay the
petitioner a sum of Rs.10000 by way of costs as a token of the court’s appreciation of the
valiant battle the petitioner fought against a giant enterprise and achieving substantial
success.

22. 22
CONCLUSION, CRITIQUE & SUGGESTIONS
The Shriram food fertilizer case, close on the heels of the Bhopal gas tragedy not only
marked a revival of sorts in the interpretation of fundamental rights enshrined in the
constitution but also brought about a new wave of awareness about increasing environmental
issues which was the result of an industrialization spurt that started in the late 1970’s. The
right to a pollution free environment is a part of right to life, and these two cannot be
separated, because the intrinsic bonds between these two are very strong. It is an undeniable
fact that a contaminated environment will kill Human life. Thus, the right to pollution free
environment underlies the right to life, which is meaningless in the absence of pure, decent
and healthy life supporting eco-system which sustains life. In the relentless pursuit of
industrializing the economy and putting it on a pedestal, the environment suffered a great
deal and with it, did the country’s people. In India, industrialization took place without due
consideration of its impact on the environment which was degrading day after day due to the
non-implementation of precautionary measures and proper management of disposal methods.
The Indian constitution guarantees fundamental rights in such a manner that it can be
interpreted according to the circumstances of the case and in that sense it’s more flexible
than rigid thus allowing broader definitions to be assimilated and subjecting it to an
evolutionary approach by the courts. So it shouldn’t be a surprise then that the High courts
and Supreme courts have unanimously held that Right to life is guaranteed in human rights
jurisprudence. Right to Life is guaranteed by customary International Law, the UDHR and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The scope of right to life has
expanded to include quality of Life. Therefore the right to food, medical care, education and
pure and decent environment would all fall within the purview of Right to life under article
21.The right to living is evolving from the right to life. Thus environmental protection
becomes mandatory to the quality of life. The High Court and the Supreme Court of India
have read the Right to wholesome environment as part of right to life guaranteed in Article
21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 enunciates that no person shall be deprived of His
life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The slow
contamination of air due to environmental pollution amounts to a violation of the
fundamental right of right to life. In fact, the right to-life Guaranteed in Article 21 of the
Constitution embraces the protection and preservation of nature's gifts without which life

23. 23
cannot be enjoyed. Moreover, environmental Degradation has disastrous impact on the right
to livelihood which is a part of the right to life. Every citizen has the fundamental right to
have the enjoyment of quality of life and living as contemplated by Article 21 of the
Constitution. Anything which endangers or impairs by conduct of anybody either in violation
or derogation of laws, that quality of life or by People is entitled to be taken recourse of
article 32 of the Constitution.
In cases of industry related environmental pollution by ways of gas leakage or by discharging
untreated industrial effluents into water bodies, the court has opined that “If an industry is
established without obtaining the requisite Permission and clearances and if the
industry continued to be run in blatant disregard of citizens living in the vicinity, this
court has the power to intervene and protect the fundamental right to life and liberty of
the citizens of the country.” The Bhopal Gas tragedy is a live example of the dangerous
consequences of industrial gas pollution. Nearly 40 tons of toxic methyl isocyanides (MIC)
gas escaped into the atmosphere on the night of December 3rd 1984 causing the death of
nearly 3500 people who lived in the vicinity and approximately 2lac people were affected by
the disaster. The Supreme Court held that the right to life and liberty included Pollution free
environment guaranteed under Article 21.The Fundamental Duties under Article 48A and
51A (g) were also referred to in this decision. The court ordered the Union carbide
corporation to pay compensation amounting to us$ 470 million. A similar approach was
adopted in the Shriram food fertilizer (oleum gas leak) case which occurred as if on cue
exactly a year later on 4th December 1985 when Oleum gas leaked out of its caustic chlorine
plant. In this case the Supreme Court clarified the position of damages when harm results
from the hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity. In such cases, the court
held that the compensation “must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the
enterprise because such compensation must have a deterrent effect. The larger and
more prosperous the enterprise the greater must be the amount of compensation
payable by it.”
The directive principles of state policy (DPSP) which act as guidelines for the state explicitly
mention the duty to protect the environment through article 48A and by means of
fundamental duties enshrined in article 51A (g). Article 48A proclaims that the state shall
endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of
the country. The Directive Principles possess the legal status of being complementary to

24. 24
Fundamental rights and impose an obligation on the Government, including Courts to protect
the environment. Article 5 1A (g) imposes a duty on every citizen to protect and improve the
natural environment including forests, lakes rivers and wild life and to have compassion for
living creatures. Preservation of environment and keeping the ecological balance unaffected
is task which every citizen must undertake as a Social obligation. This provision of
fundamental duty flows from the World Charter for Nature [Adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly on 28th October, 1982]. This Charter recognizes the rights of the
individuals and non-governmental Entities by providing that all persons shall have access to
means of redress when their environment has suffered damage or degradation. The neglect
and failure to abide by Articles 48A and 51A (g) of the Constitution is nothing short of
betrayal of the fundamental law of the State.
CRITQUE OF THE CASE:
I selected this case because in many ways the Shriram case was a catalyst that brought about
judicial activism in the field of environmental issues. Apart from deciding on some really
seminal issues based on constitutional provisions like examining the powers of the SC under
article 32, or interpreting the right to life enshrined in article 21 to be inclusive of the right to
health and determining the liability of industries engaged in the manufacture of hazardous
substances, it was after the Bhopal gas tragedy and Shriram food fertilizer case that the
government realized the need for legislation that specifically catered to environmental issues
and suited the conditions prevailing in the country. It was during this time that Public interest
litigations really came into prominence, and majority of them dealt with environmental
issues that ranged from gas leak disasters, water pollution due to untreated industrial
effluents to the protection of forests, coastal areas and relocation of industries from densely
populated areas.
This recognition for separate legislation to help assist courts with its decision making process
from the environmental perspective resulted in the passing of the environmental protection
act in 1986 when the country was recovering from the brink of two major gas leak disasters.
The Supreme Court’s suggestion in the Shriram case to set up environmental courts on a
regional basis was considered to be an appropriate recommendation as issues involving
ecological imbalances and environmental pollution was increasing as urbanization infiltrated
previously untouched green zones.

25. 25
The judgment pronounced in this case became a compelling force to pass a competent law
that would deal with environmental issues. Prior to this act, there was no legislation that dealt
with the standards of various pollutants or their allowable limits. Penal provisions were
found to be ineffective when dealing with large scale environmental disasters, and neither
were there enactments that defined what environment is or what pollution is. The act was
enacted to fulfill the constitutional obligation laid on the state, keeping in mind the
background of India’s environmental scenario.
Another important aspect of the Shriram case was the applicability of the principle of strict
liability that was adopted from the English courts in the case of Rylands v.Fletcher. In the
case of Shriram, the same principle was applied albeit a little differently. In Rylands v.
Fletcher, the court opined that if a person brings on his land and keeps there any dangerous
thing, he will be prima facie answerable for the damage caused by its escape even though he
has observed due diligence in containing it. But the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was subject to
exceptions which were
 Act of God- This phrase denotes those acts that take place directly and exclusively
due to natural causes without human intervention, for e.g., floods, earthquakes etc. It
is attributed to the Latin maxim ‘Actus dei nemini facit injuriam’ which means that
law would not hold any man responsible for the act of god.
 Consent of the plaintiff- If the plaintiff or the person or class of persons have
consented to such an act knowing fully well the consequences of the act, it would be
an exception to the rule of strict liability and respondent or defendant would not be
held under the principle of strict liability.
 Act of third party- An act of any third party independent of the plaintiff and
respondent could not be taken to hold the respondent liable for the third party’s act.
 Statutory authority- If there is a statutory provision that envisages provisions for
such liability; it becomes an exception to the rule.
In the case of Shriram, the court evolved the rule of strict liability to suit the fast
changing society, urbanization and the growing population. The rule of liability applied
in the Shriram case was not subject to any of the exceptions laid down in the case of
Rylands v. Fletcher. The court was of the opinion that enterprises engaged in the
manufacture of such hazardous substances which poses a potential threat to the health

26. 26
and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas
owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community and must be held absolutely
liable and that the defense of observing due diligence cannot be allowed.
In my opinion, the court’s approach of laying down the principle of “no fault liability” in
the case of shriram was correct to the extent of the circumstances of the case. I also feel
that the court by permitting shriram to restart the operation of the caustic chlorine plant
was broadminded enough to embrace the concept of sustainable development, as a policy
that ordered the closure of all such industries engaged in hazardous substances would end
all progress on the industrial front. Because such industries, even though hazardous in
nature is essential for economic advancement but that of course does not mean that steps
to avert such hazards or risks should not be taken. A national policy for relocating such
industries and creating buffer zones ensuring that the public is not affected by the
operation of such industries shows that courts did keep future progress and the well being
of the community in mind while formulating the order.
However, I fail to understand the purpose behind declaring Shriram a ‘state’. Does it
mean that Shriram is not liable for violating fundamental rights just because it is a private
corporation? Irrespective of being a private or public company, the fact is that shriram
was engaged in industrial activities of a hazardous nature, how does being a “state” only
make it liable? Does the hazardous nature of the industry diminish or decrease because it
would come within the ambit of article 12? It does not, and therefore I personally feel
that article 12 shouldn’t have been brought into the picture at all.
Constitutionally, article 12 explicitly mentions all types of corporations that could and
could not be interpreted as a “state”. My question is why it should become mandatory to
prove that a corporation or company is a “state” within the meaning of article 12 when it
has prima facie violated the principles of article 21 which is a basic fundamental right.
Whether state or not, every company should be held liable for the violation of
fundamental rights, and that should be the only criteria when imposing liability. And
therefore I feel that though the court did interpret shriram as a state under article 12, as it
was engaged in activities which are as fundamental to the Society as to be necessarily
considered government functions, in the future the scope of article 12 should not be
questioned when private corporations are to be held liable, the principle of No-fault

27. 27
liability should be applied for the breach of fundamental rights whether it comes within
or outside the purview of being a state.
SUGGESTIONS:
In the case of Shriram, besides expanding the meaning of constitutional provisions to
accommodate future PIL’s revolving around the same set of principles that were dealt
with in this case, the judiciary managed to evolve its own doctrine of liability which was
derived from the English case of Rylands v. Fletcher, although the newly evolved rule of
liability by the Indian courts does not subject itself to any of the exceptions established in
the English doctrine of strict liability. The Indian judiciary has abandoned a hyper-
technical approach while dealing with this case and has won the cause of justice both for
the victims of the Oleum gas leak and for the newly evolved form of litigation i. e public
interest litigation.
I would like to suggest that the Indian judiciary should evolve itself into an independent
juristic entity than be dependent on English laws which were evolved at a different time
period to suit an economy and social structure and form of government that is different
from ours. In doing so, not only would that enable our jurists to pool together their
experience and jurisprudence which is vast but also update our legislations keeping in
view our growing judicial expertise thus making the system wholesome, intellectual and
truly unique.
END

28. 28
REFERENCE:
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (seventh edition) –D.D BASU
 PAPER ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION -DR .I.A KHAN
& HEALTH HAZARDS
 PAPER ON ARTICLE 21 & RIGHT TO POLLUTION -DR. SAYED MASWOOD
FREE ENVIRONMENT-A HUMAN RIGHT APPROACH
 PAPER ON PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION -JUSTICE S.AWASTHY

29. 29
“There may be times when we are powerless
to prevent injustice, but there must never be
a time when we fail to protest.”