## Facts

- A public-interest writ petition under Article 32 sought closure or relocation of Shriram Foods & Fertilizers Industries’ chemical units operating in a densely populated area of Delhi.
- While the petition was pending, oleum gas leaked from Shriram’s premises on December 4 and 6, 1985, affecting multiple persons; an advocate was alleged to have died.
- The Delhi Legal Aid & Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association applied in the pending proceeding seeking compensation for those harmed by the leak.
- An earlier order had permitted limited restarting of certain operations subject to stringent safety and pollution-control conditions and monitoring.
- A three-judge bench referred the compensation and liability questions to a five-judge Constitution Bench due to their constitutional significance.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court may award compensation in an Article 32 proceeding for harm caused by a subsequent event resulting in alleged violation of Article 21.
2. Whether, for accidents from hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, liability should follow *Rylands v. Fletcher* (with exceptions) or a stricter rule.
3. Whether the Court should decide if the enterprise is “State” or an “authority” under Article 12 for purposes of direct fundamental-rights enforcement.
4. What approach to procedure and evidentiary rigidity is permissible in public-interest litigation addressing environmental and industrial harms.

## Decision

- The Court held that Article 32 is remedial and includes power to award compensation for infringement of fundamental rights, including harms arising during the pendency of the petition.
- The Court formulated a rule of absolute liability: an enterprise engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all affected by an accident, without *Rylands v. Fletcher* exceptions.
- The Court stated that compensation should reflect the enterprise’s magnitude and capacity so that liability has deterrent effect.
- The Court expressly left open the Article 12 question whether the enterprise is “State” or “other authority,” to be decided in a future case.
- The Court laid down the doctrinal framework and contemplated further proceedings for detailed assessment and award of compensation.

## Legal Principles

- Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to craft effective remedies, including monetary compensation, to vindicate fundamental rights.
- Article 21 protections extend to safety and environmental conditions impacting life and personal security, supporting constitutional remedies for industrial disasters.
- For hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, the operator bears a non-delegable duty to the community and is absolutely liable for resulting harm, without defenses such as act of God, third-party act, or claimant fault.
- The quantum of compensation may be scaled to the enterprise’s resources and operational capacity to ensure deterrence and internalization of accident costs.
- In public-interest litigation involving widespread harm, procedural technicalities may be relaxed to secure effective enforcement of fundamental rights.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court treated Article 32 as a vehicle for compensatory relief for fundamental-rights violations and established absolute liability for hazardous industries, requiring such enterprises to bear full financial responsibility for accident-related harm without traditional strict-liability exceptions, while leaving the Article 12 status of the enterprise unresolved.


M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086 (India 1986)