Background and Facts of the Case
This landmark in Indian tort law started with a tremendous industry accident on December 4, 1985, at the plant in Delhi belonging to the Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industries. The plant was engaged in the production of caustic chlorine and similar harmful chemicals for use in industry. A large leak in the oleum gas (chlorine gas) occurred when one of the storage tanks burst while operations were going in their normal course.
The immediate result of this disaster was ghastly. The toxic gases reached neighboring regions within hours and injured thousands of unarmed civilians who had no connection with the plant at all. An activist, Shri Harish Chandra Jain, died due to the gas, and hundreds of people were seriously injured from shortness of breath to permanent incapacitation. The disaster was almost similar to the Bhopal Gas horror that had struck just a few months earlier in 1984 and highlighted the urgent necessity to apply stricter liability norms for risky industries.
What was unique in this instance was the move by environmental activist M.C. Mehta. He brought in a public interest litigation calling for compensation to the victims and upholding proper legal norms for industrially safe working. Mehta filed a petition in the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 in the Indian Constitution asking for the help of the court in this public interest matter.
The plant was located in a populous area in Delhi, which heightened the possibility of extensive loss of life. The operations involved handling extremely poisonous compounds with intense dangers to life and environmental security. The company was engaging in operations without adequate safeguards and the regulatory system in place was not efficient in preventing disasters or providing adequate compensation to victims.
Legislative Issues Implicated
India was struck with a singular incident which required an entire rehaul of its regulatory system governing industrial liability. This required responding to numerous interconnected questions:
Primary Issue: Is the principle of strict liability applicable to businesses involved in perilous activities irrespective of any care exercised?
Secondary Issues:
1. How tort principles derived from *Rylands v. Fletcher* apply to modern hazards in industry?
2. What constitutional remedies are available to victims of industrial disasters?
3. Are enterprises liable for injuries to victims even when not negligent?
4. What is the appropriate function of the judiciary in articulating legal principles in the light of modern challenges?
Constitutional Issues:
* Does Article 21 right to life include the right to live in a clean environment?
* To what extent can the state’s liability stretch with regard to industrial dangers within its territory?
* How far does the strict liability doctrine apply to Indian constitutional law?
Points Raised by Parties
Contentions of Petitioner (M.C. Mehta):
Challenging the orthodox doctrine of tort liability, M.C. Mehta contended strongly in support of the extension of the legal framework.
The main submission was that businesses involved in dangerous undertakings should have strict liability for all outcomes irrespective of how much care has or has not been taken. The petitioner held that the then common law system founded upon *Rylands v. Fletcher* was inadequate to deal with the complexity of modern day industrial disasters


mc-mehta-v-union-of-india-oleum-gas-leak-case-–-a-legal-analysis

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) – A Legal Analysis

The global electronics manufacturing sector has witnessed unprecedented shifts over the recent years which is driven by supply chain vulnerabilities, geopolitical tensions  across the world and the changing economic dynamics .  But  at the center of those transformations lies the complicated relationship between major technology  companies and their manufacturing partners and suppliers, particularly in the context of geographical diversification strategies . The recent decision taken by the Foxconn Technology Group to recall hundreds of Chinese engineers and technicians from its Indian iPhone  manufacturing facilities represents a very pivotal moment in this evolving and very much dynamic landscape.
Foxconn India , began its  iPhone production in 2019,  this has been integral  to Apple’s strategy of reducing its dependence on Chinese manufacturing.  The withdrawal of Chinese technical staff , particularly during the time when Apple would be preparing for the mass production of the iPhone 17 , raises critical questions about the sustainability of technology transfer , and the absence of skilled personnel in manufacturing excellence in India , and the impact that geopolitical considerations would have on Corporate decision - making.


Sourjya Banerjee

Legal Cyfle

Opportunities

Company

Social

Miscellaneous

Resources