Address inconsistencies in India’s green jurisprudence

In the 1980s, India stood at a crossroads. Industrial growth was accelerating: populations were swelling; but regulation was weak, enforcement weaker. Then two major industrial accidents happened. In December 1984, the Bhopal gas tragedy —leakage of methyl isocyanate from Union Carbide's factory —killed thousands. In December 1985, toxic oleum gas leaked from the Shri Ram Food & Fertilizers plant in a densely populated region of Delhi.

- Ashish Bharadwaj Insiyah Vahanvaty

These disasters were sharp reminders that industrial development in India had outpaced both safety regulations and legal accountability. MC Mehta filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging dangerous industrial practices and weak oversight. He argued that the oleum leak not only endangered lives but violated the right to life enshrined in Article 21. MC Mehta v. Union of India thus became a watershed moment in Indian environmental jurisprudence.

At that time, Indian law operated under principles inherited from British common law, including strict liability —bedrock of tort law (civil wrongs) —which emanated from the landmark Rylands v. Fletcher (1868). Under this rule, an enterprise could be held lia-

ble for harm caused by it only if negligence is proved —and even then, defences were available

In MC Mehta 1986, the Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice PN Bhagwati, reasoned that industries dealing with hazardous substances have a “non-delegable duty” to ensure safety. If their operations put public health at risk, they must bear the full cost of any accident regardless of negligence. This led to a century-old rule in Rylands v. Fletcher being replaced with the rule of “absolute liability” where cases of industrial harm will have to be adjudicated under a more stringent standard of liability.