Emergence of Enviro-Legal Activism :
The M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India case (1986)
The positive development of a human being takes place only in a sound environment. And this is the reason, the ‘Right to clean and healthy environment’ is considered to be one of the basic human rights today. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedures established by law’.
The Supreme Court further explains this right in two ways. Firstly, any law affecting personal liberty should be reasonable, fair and just. Secondly, the Court recognises several unarticulated liberties that are implied by article 21 and interprets the right to life and personal liberty to include the right to a clean environment.
Hence, a violation of the right to a healthy environment is potentially a violation of the basic right to life. Although this concept gained momentum in India only after the infamous Bhopal gas tragedy of 1984, the Indian Parliament began working out solutions — aiming at environmental problems like pollution — soon after the Stockholm Conference, held in the year 1972. In the light of protecting and improvising the environment for present and future generations, the Indian Parliament passed statutes like the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 among many others. Additionally, the constitutional (forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 incorporated two significant articles thereby making the Indian Constitution the first in the world conferring constitutional status to environment protection. Further development in the realm of environmental jurisprudence can be credited to the Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by the well-known public interest attorney, Mahesh Chandra Mehta. He has ‘single-handedly’ won many landmark judgments and one of his many winnings which changed the legal and environmental landscape of India is the ‘M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India case’ of 1986.
Learn more about how law can save our planet.
About the case:
This case is also known as the ‘Oleum gas leak case’ and involved a company named ‘Shriram Food and Fertiliser Industry’. This company was a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Limited and was engaged in the manufacturing of hazardous substances — caustic chlorine and oleum gas. Since the company was situated in a densely populated area of Delhi and posed a threat to the community, social activist lawyer M.C Mehta filed a writ petition for the closure of Shriram Food and Fertiliser Industry.
While the petition was pending, a huge amount of oleum gas spilt from one of its units on 4th December 1985. This created havoc and fear amongst the people. While the company was in the process of shifting out, a second leak happened on 6th December 1985. These two instances led to the death of one person and several were hospitalised. At this point, the District Magistrate of Delhi requested Shriram Industry to stop its production and to “expel such synthetic substances and gases from Delhi”. Along with the original petition of M.C. Mehta, the Delhi Legal aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association filed applications demanding for ‘compensation’ for the victims of the devastating disaster and also pleaded to not allow the closed establishment to restart.
The issues raised:
The three major issues which revolved around this case were:-
- Whether Shriram Food and Fertiliser Industry should be allowed to restart its manufacturing operations and whether it would be a violation of Article 21?
- What should be the measure of liability of an enterprise which is engaged in the manufacturing of a hazardous substance which poses a potential risk to the health of the community at large?
- Whether Shriram Industry is a ‘state’ and comes under the ambit of Article 12?
The Judgement:
The Supreme Court adjudicated on these matters and a judgement was delivered on 19th December 1986. The court instructed Shriram industry to comply with all the recommendations of the Nilay Choudhary and Manmohan Singh Committees and issued a strict notice that failure to do so would result in the immediate closure of the plant. Here, the fact that the Right to health and clean environment is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but is inherent under the Right to life (Article 21) was highlighted and emphasised.
Regarding the ‘measure of liability’ of the enterprise, it was stated that the company should have an “absolute and non-delegable liability to ensure that no harm is caused to the community because of the dangerous nature of the activity they have undertaken and to make them accountable for that”. This means, “the amount of compensation should be equal to the magnitude of the harm caused to the community and should also be correlated to the capacity of Shriram industry so as to have a deterrent effect”.
The third issue — whether the company falls or does not fall under Article 12 — was the most debated one. According to the Indian Constitution, Article 12 states that the “State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India”. Whether Shriram industry would be included under the ambit of article 12 would further decide its subjection to the discipline of article 21. In response to this issue, the Supreme Court stated that the company was indeed working under the government. The court likewise expressed that there would always be some form of risk when a new industry is launched for development purposes. Since the development was necessary to the nation, the private entities could not be held under the threat of being categorised as a ‘public entity’, as this could discourage them from opening new private companies. Since this issue required a lot of time and calculations, the court eventually did not make a decision regarding this issue. Moreover, the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board were directed to “file a comprehensive action on behalf of all those who claimed to have suffered from this incident before an appropriate court within two months from the date of judgement”.
Conclusion:
The landmark judgement of the M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India case changed the enviro-legal landscape of India and hence, is celebrated even today. Through this case, the apex court was able to accentuate article 21. The court also aimed to reinstall the faith of the country in the judiciary by taking note of the concerns raised after the judgement of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy of 1984. Most importantly, this case produced a strong stance about the responsibility and liability of industries for their actions and the punishment which must follow if such industries put the lives of people and the environment at stake.
Can law save the future? Do you think environment law the need of climate activism?
