Vizag Gas Leak: 'Strict Liability' Or 'Absolute Liability'?

On Friday, the National Green Tribunal ordered LG Polymers to deposit Rs. 50 Crores with the District Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam, in connection to a major leak of Styrene gas from its polymer plant situated in RR Venkatapuram village.However, the NGT observed in the order that the situation attracted the principle of "strict liability"."Leakage of hazardous gas at such a scale adversely affecting public health and environment, clearly attracts the principle of 'Strict Liability' against the enterprise engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous industry", the Tribunal observed. The principle of "strict liability", evolved in the year 1868 in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, [1868] UKHL 1, has become obsolete now with the evolution of "absolute liability" principle. As per this principle, any person who indulges in "non-natural" use of land and who keeps "hazardous substances" on his premises will be held "strictly liable" if such substances "escapes" the premises and causes any "damage". The quoted words form the essentials for constituting strict liability of an industry. However, this principle allows for exception from liability if such damage has been caused by :(i) the Plaintiff's own fault; (ii) an Act of God; (iii) act of a Third Party; or (iv) if the hazardous activity was being carried out with the consent of the Plaintiff (violenti non fit injuria). In principle, the concept of strict liability contemplates the accountability of a person/ industry carrying out hazardous activity in cases where some sort of "negligence" is attributable to them. Strikingly, this principle was overturned by the Indian Supreme Court in the celebrated decision of MC Mehta v. Union of India, 1987 SCR (1) 819, whereby the top Court evolved the concept of no-fault liability, formally known as the principle of "Absolute Liability", to remedy the "undeserved suffering of thousands of innocent citizens". Under this principle, "an enterprise, which is engaged in 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-delegatable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous activity which it has undertaken." The principle of absolute liability offers no exception to the industries involved in hazardous activities and they are absolutely liable for the damage so caused, despite observance of due diligence. The decision was passed by a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the aftermath of the Oleum gas leak from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilisers Industries, in Delhi in the year 1985, causing significant detrimental health effects to the local population. Finding the principle of strict liability "woefully inadequate" to protect citizens' rights in an industrialized economy like India, the Apex Court formulated the principle of absolute liability. "This, rule ( Ryland v. Fletcher ) 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 norm and the needs of the present day economy and social structure. We do not feel inhibited by this rule which was evolved in the 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 this country. As new situations arise the law has to be evolved in order to meet the challenge of such new situations. Law cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constrained by reference of the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of that in other foreign legal order. We in India cannot hold our hands back and I venture to evolve a new principle of liability which English courts have not done," the constitution bench led by then Chief Justice PN Bhagwati had observed. Considerably, this decision was rendered when the country was still reeling under the shock of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy. The legal proceedings instituted in the upshot of this fatality came to be decided by the Supreme Court in the year 1989 applying the principle laid down in the MC Mehta case. The principle has thereafter been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court on various occasions, including in the case of Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480, whereby it was highlighted that this rule is "absolute and non-delegable" and the enterprise cannot escape liability by showing that it had taken reasonable care or there was no negligence on its part. In the said case, the Supreme Court had examined the constitutionality of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claim) Act, 1985 which was enacted by the Central Government ...

Vizag Gas Leak: 'Strict Liability' Or 'Absolute Liability'?

Akshita Saxena

Tags