LexM.C. MEHTA AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M.C. MEHTA AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DECEMBER 20. 1986 [P.N. BHAGWATI. CJ, RANGANATH MISRA. G.L. OZA, M.M. DUTT AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] Constitution of India 195()-Artic/es 12 & 21-Private corpora- tion-Engaged in industry vital to public interest with potential to affect life and health of people-Whether 'other authority'-Extent of availa- bility of Article 21. Article 32-Jurisdiction and Power of Court-Not only injunctive in ambit-Remedial ·in scope and provides relief for infringement of fundamental right-Power to award compensation. A B c Public Interest Litigation-Maintainability of-Whether letters D addressed even to an individual judge entertainable-Whether preferred form of address applicable-Whether letters to· be supported by affidavits-Hyper-technical approach to be avoided by the Court- Court must look at the substance and not the form-Court's power to collect relevant material and to appoint commissions. Law of Torts-Liability of an enterprise engaged in a hazardous and inherently dangerous industry for occurrence of accident-Strict and absolllfe-Quantum of compensation payable for harm caused- Determination of-Rule laid in Rylands v. Fletcher-Whether applic- able in India. Jurisprudence-Law-Should 1 keep pace ivith changing socio- economic norms--Where a law of the past does not fit in to the present context, Court should evolve new law. Interpretation of Constitution-Creative and innovative interpre- E F tation in consonance with human rights jurisprudence emphasised. G Interpretation of statutes-Foreign case /a1v-Supre1ne Court of India not bound to follow. The petitioners, in this writ petition under Art. 32, sought a direc- tion for closure of the various units of Shriram Foods & Fertilizers ' H 819 820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 1 S.C.R. ' A Industries on the ground that they were hazardous to the community. During the pendency of the petition, there was escape of oleum gas from one of the units of Shriram. The Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association filed applications for award of compensation to the persons who had suffered harm on account of escape of oleum B gas. A Bench of three Hon'ble Judges while permitting Shriram to restart its power plant as also other plants subject to certain conditions, referred the applications for compensation to a larger Bench of five Judges because issues of great constitutional importance were involved, namely, (I) What is the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the C Supreme Court under Art. 32 since the applications for compensation are sought to be maintained under that Article; (2) Whether Art. 2 I is available against Shriram which is owned by Delhi Cloth Mills Limited, a public company limited by shares and which is engaged in an industry vital to public interest and with potential to affect the life and health of 0 the people; and (3) What is the measure of liability of an enterprise which is engaged in an hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, if by reason of an accident occurring in such industry, persons die or are injured. Does the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, (1866 Law Report 1 Exchequer 265) apply or is there any other principle on which the liability can be determined. Disposing of the applications, HELD: I. The question whether a private corporation like Shriram would fall within the scope and ambit of Art. 12 so as to be amenable to the discipline of Art. 21 is left for proper and detailed F consideration at a later stage if it becomes necessary to do so. [844F-G I Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, [1967] 3 SCR 377; Sukhdev v. Bhagwat Ram, [1975] l SCC 421; Ramanna Shetty v. Inter- national Airport Authority, [1979] 3 SCR 1014; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, [1981] 2 SCR 79; Som Prakash v. Union of India, [1981] 1 G S.C.C. 449; Appendix I to Industrial Policy Resolution, 1948; Indus- tries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951; Delhi Municipal Act, 1957 Water (Prevention and Control of PoUution) Act, 1974; Air (Preven- tion and Control of PoUution) Act, 1981; Eurasian Equipment and Chemicals ltd. v. State of West Bengal, [1975] 2 SCR 674; Rasbehari Panda v. State, [1969] 3 SCR 374; Kasturi Lal Reddy v. State of Jammu H & Kashmir, [1980] 3 SCR 1338, referred to. i ' -"! ... ' M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA 821 2. The Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board is directed to take up the cases of all those who claim to have suffered on acc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.