Case Name: Mc Mehta vs. Union of India
Background of the case:
The Mc Mehta v. Union of India case, often known as the “Oleum Gas Leak Case,” is a significant instance of environmental litigation in India. The terrible incidence of the oleum gas leak from the Shriram Food and Fertilizer Plant in Delhi in 1985, which caused major health risks and environmental damage, served as the basis for the case. M.C. Mehta, an environmental activist, brought this lawsuit under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution in order to obtain financial support for the victims and legislative changes to stop similar incidents from happening again.
Key Issues raised :
The right to a healthy environment, which is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, was the main concern in this case. It questioned whether those who suffer from industrial accidents and environmental contamination had a constitutional right to compensation and recourse if their rights to life and personal freedom have been violated.
Arguments of both sides :
The Case Made by Mc Mehta:
According to M.C. Mehta, the oleum gas leak had a negative influence on the life and health of the residents of the affected districts. He argued that the right to a healthy environment was covered by Article 21’s right to life and that the government had a responsibility to uphold and maintain this right. Mehta fought for the victims’ financial recovery and stringent regulatory measures to prevent such incidents in the future.
The Case Made by Union of India:
While acknowledging the significance of the tragedy, the Union of India maintained that the Constitution did not contain any particular language protecting the right to a healthy environment. They argued that the laws and rules already in place were adequate to deal with these problems. The administration expressed worries about the industry-specific economic effects of applying strict liability.
Decision:
On February 20, 1987, the Supreme Court of India, presided over by Justices V. Balakrishna Eradi, S. Ranganathan, and K.N. Singh, rendered a landmark decision in M.C. Mehta’s favor. The court ruled that the state had a responsibility to provide environmental protection because Article 21’s right to life included the right to a healthy environment.
The court also acknowledged “absolute liability” for harmful industries, which states that businesses engaging in activities that are intrinsically dangerous are responsible for any harm caused, regardless of whether they took all reasonable safeguards. The “polluter pays” principle was reinforced and strict liability for industries was established.
Significance :
The Mc Mehta v. Union of India case was pivotal in establishing India’s legal framework for environmental protection. It opened the door for several environmental court lawsuits in the nation by recognizing the right to a healthy environment as a basic right under Article 21. The “polluter pays” and absolute liability principles outlined in this judgment have been crucial in holding businesses accountable for environmental harm.
This case acted as a catalyst for the development of environmental jurisprudence in India and led to the enactment of several environmental laws and regulations. It underscored the importance of balancing economic development with environmental protection and remains a cornerstone in India’s efforts to safeguard its natural resources and the health of its citizens.
