Doctrine of Strict Liability (Rylands v. Fletcher)**

The doctrine of Strict Liability is a legal principle that holds a person liable for damages caused by their actions, even if they were not negligent and took reasonable care to prevent the harm. In environmental law, this doctrine is particularly relevant when dealing with activities that are inherently dangerous or involve hazardous substances.

Liability without fault

The principle of Strict Liability originated from the landmark English case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868). The basic rule laid down in this case by the House of Lords is:

"A person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape."

The essential elements for establishing liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher are:

• Non-natural Use of Land: The defendant must have brought something onto their land that is not naturally there (e.g., large quantities of water in a reservoir, hazardous chemicals, electricity).
• Likely to do Mischief: The thing brought onto the land must be something likely to cause damage if it escapes.
• Escape: The thing must escape from the defendant's land.
• Damage: The escape must cause damage to the plaintiff's property or person.

The crucial aspect of this doctrine, and why it's called "Strict Liability", is that the defendant is held liable even if they took all reasonable precautions to prevent the escape and were not negligent. The liability arises simply from the fact that they engaged in a dangerous activity that resulted in an escape causing harm.

However, the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher is not absolute. It is subject to certain defences or exceptions, including:

• Act of God (unforeseeable natural event).
• Act of a third party (unforeseeable malicious or negligent act by someone outside the defendant's control).
• Consent of the plaintiff.
• Statutory authority (where the act is authorised by legislation).
• Default of the plaintiff.

These exceptions mean that the liability, while strict, is not absolute. If the escape and resulting damage were caused by an 'Act of God' or the act of a trespasser which the defendant could not reasonably have anticipated, the defendant might escape liability.

Application to hazardous industries

The doctrine of Strict Liability, as laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher, was historically considered applicable to industries engaged in activities involving the storage or use of dangerous substances. Industrial processes often involve substances like chemicals, fuels, or large volumes of water that, if they escape, can cause significant damage to the surrounding environment and populations.

In the context of early environmental law, the Rylands v. Fletcher rule provided a legal basis for victims of industrial accidents (like chemical spills, leaks from reservoirs, emissions of noxious fumes that settle down) to seek compensation from the industry without necessarily having to prove specific acts of negligence. The 'non-natural use' element could be interpreted to cover large-scale industrial operations involving hazardous materials, and the 'escape' could refer to the release of pollutants into the environment.

However, applying the Rylands v. Fletcher rule to complex industrial accidents and widespread environmental pollution presented challenges, particularly concerning the exceptions. Industries could argue that an accident was caused by a third party (e.g., sabotage) or an unforeseen natural event, potentially escaping liability despite the hazardous nature of their operations. Furthermore, proving the escape and establishing a direct causal link to damage could be difficult in diffused pollution cases.

While the doctrine provided a starting point, its limitations, especially the availability of defences, meant that victims of industrial accidents and environmental damage did not always get adequate or timely compensation. This was particularly highlighted by major industrial disasters, leading to the development of more stringent liability principles in many jurisdictions, including India.

Indian Context: Strict Liability for Hazardous Industries

In India, the principle of Strict Liability based on Rylands v. Fletcher was initially recognised and applied by courts in cases of damage caused by hazardous activities. However, the limitations of this doctrine, particularly its exceptions, became acutely apparent after major industrial accidents.

The devastating Bhopal Gas Tragedy in December 1984, involving the leakage of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas from the Union Carbide plant, which killed thousands and affected lakhs, highlighted the inadequacy of the existing legal framework, including the strict liability rule, to deal with large-scale industrial disasters involving hazardous substances. The difficulty in proving negligence and the potential for the company to raise defences under Rylands v. Fletcher necessitated a rethinking of liability principles for hazardous industries.

This rethinking led to a seminal development in Indian environmental jurisprudence in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986), also known as the Oleum Gas Leak Case. This case involved a leakage of Oleum gas from the Shriram Foods and Fertilisers Industries plant in Delhi shortly after the Bhopal tragedy. The Supreme Court seized this opportunity to evolve a new, more stringent principle of liability for enterprises engaged in hazardous activities.

The Supreme Court, departing from the strict liability rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, propounded the principle of Absolute Liability. The Court held that:

"We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of the carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity... We are of the opinion that the enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous activity in which it is engaged can be conducted with absolute safety for the workmen and the living in the surrounding areas... If the enterprise is permitted to carry on such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident, and not passing it on to the innocent victims. If any harm results to anyone on account of the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, the enterprise must be strictly and absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part... This rule is also not subject to any of the exceptions which operate in the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher... We would therefore hold that where a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is carried on by a person, he is liable to pay compensation for the injury caused to anyone on account of the operation of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity... and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which are available in the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher."

This judgment marked a significant advancement by establishing Absolute Liability, which is stricter than Strict Liability as it does not permit any defences (like Act of God, act of third party, etc.) for the owner of a hazardous enterprise in case of an accident causing harm. The rationale is that enterprises undertaking such inherently risky activities for profit must bear the entire cost of any resulting damage. The measure of damages, the Court suggested, should be large enough to be a deterrent.

The principle of Absolute Liability enunciated in the M.C. Mehta case was subsequently given statutory recognition in India through:

• The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991: This Act mandates compulsory public liability insurance for owners handling hazardous substances and provides for immediate relief to victims based on the principle of no-fault liability, which is derived from the concept of Absolute Liability. The Act specifies fixed amounts for immediate relief payable without proving negligence.
• The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: The NGT Act empowers the National Green Tribunal to award compensation and relief for environmental damage based on the principle of 'polluter pays', which encompasses both strict liability (where negligence might be considered in calculating final compensation) and absolute liability (for harm from hazardous activities). Section 17 of the NGT Act specifically deals with the Tribunal's liability jurisdiction for environmental damage, linking it to the principles laid down in the M.C. Mehta case.

Therefore, in the Indian context, for accidents involving hazardous substances and activities, the principle applied is not merely strict liability (Rylands v. Fletcher) but the more stringent principle of Absolute Liability, which has evolved through judicial pronouncements and been codified in specific statutes to ensure greater protection and faster relief for victims.

Doctrine of Absolute Liability (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India - Oleum Gas Leak Case)**

The doctrine of Absolute Liability is a principle of liability developed by the Supreme Court of India, specifically for cases involving harm caused by hazardous or inherently dangerous industries. It is a more stringent form of liability compared to the traditional Strict Liability rule (Rylands v. Fletcher).

More stringent than strict liability

The doctrine of Absolute Liability was propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986), also known as the Oleum Gas Leak Case. This case arose in the immediate aftermath of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, highlighting the inadequacies of the existing legal framework, including the strict liability rule of Rylands v. Fletcher, in dealing with large-scale industrial accidents involving hazardous substances.

The Supreme Court, led by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, noted the limitations of the Rylands v. Fletcher rule, particularly the availability of certain exceptions that could allow a hazardous enterprise to escape liability despite the immense harm caused. The Court felt that in a modern industrialised society where hazardous industries are permitted to operate for private profit, they must bear a corresponding absolute responsibility for any harm they cause.

The principle of Absolute Liability differs from Strict Liability (Rylands v. Fletcher) in a fundamental way:

• Strict Liability (Rylands v. Fletcher): Makes a person liable for harm caused by the escape of a dangerous thing from their land if kept under 'non-natural use', but allows certain defences (like Act of God, act of third party, etc.).
• Absolute Liability (M.C. Mehta): Makes an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity absolutely liable for any harm caused by an accident, without any exceptions or defences whatsoever.

The Court reasoned that if an enterprise is allowed to carry on a hazardous activity for profit, it must be presumed that such permission is conditional upon the enterprise bearing the full cost of any accident, and not shifting this cost onto the innocent victims or the environment.

No exceptions available

A defining characteristic that makes Absolute Liability more stringent is the explicit declaration by the Supreme Court in the M.C. Mehta case that this rule is "not subject to any of the exceptions which operate in the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher".

This means that under the doctrine of Absolute Liability, an enterprise cannot escape liability by arguing that the accident was caused by:

• An Act of God.
• The act of a third party (even if unforeseeable).
• Consent of the victim.
• Compliance with statutory authority (as the liability is absolute, even authorised dangerous activities carry absolute responsibility for harm).

If harm is caused by an accident involving a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, the enterprise conducting that activity is absolutely liable for compensation. The only thing the victim needs to prove is that the accident occurred while the enterprise was engaged in such an activity and that they suffered harm as a consequence. The enterprise cannot plead that it took all reasonable care or that the accident happened despite its best efforts. This ensures that victims of accidents from hazardous industries are guaranteed compensation regardless of the specific circumstances of the accident.

Application of Absolute Liability in Environmental Torts

The doctrine of Absolute Liability, as evolved in the M.C. Mehta case, has specific applicability in the realm of environmental torts in India, particularly those arising from industrial activities involving hazardous substances.

For hazardous industries

The principle of Absolute Liability is specifically applied to enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities. The M.C. Mehta judgment was delivered in the context of a fertiliser and chemical plant handling hazardous gases. Subsequent interpretations and applications by courts and the National Green Tribunal have clarified that this principle applies to industries and activities that by their nature involve a high degree of risk to human health and the environment due to the handling of hazardous substances.

Examples of activities where Absolute Liability is likely to apply include:

• Manufacturing, storage, and handling of highly toxic or flammable chemicals.
• Operation of power plants handling hazardous materials or generating hazardous waste (like fly ash with toxic heavy metals).
• Mining activities involving hazardous substances or processes.
• Operation of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs).
• Transportation of hazardous goods.

When an accident occurs during such hazardous activities, resulting in environmental damage or harm to individuals, the principle of Absolute Liability holds the responsible enterprise liable for compensation regardless of fault. This includes liability for:

• Personal injury or death to workers, residents, or members of the public.
• Damage to property (houses, crops, livestock).
• Damage to the environment (pollution of soil, water, air; harm to ecosystems).

The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, statutorily codified the concept of no-fault liability (derived from Absolute Liability) for accidents involving hazardous substances, ensuring immediate relief to victims. Furthermore, the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, in Section 17, empowers the NGT to award compensation for environmental damage arising from accidents involving hazardous substances based on the principle of absolute liability (as laid down in the M.C. Mehta case). This means the NGT can direct polluters from hazardous industries to pay compensation for both personal injury/property damage and for environmental restoration, without allowing them to raise defences.

The application of Absolute Liability in Indian environmental torts provides a robust legal foundation for holding hazardous industries fully accountable for the harm they cause, promoting a higher standard of care and internalising the environmental and social costs of their operations.

Reparation for Environmental Damage

The doctrine of Absolute Liability, particularly in the context of environmental harm caused by hazardous industries, extends beyond merely compensating individual victims for personal injury or property loss. It also encompasses the crucial aspect of reparation or restitution for the damage caused directly to the environment itself.

Traditional tort law often focused on compensating identifiable victims for direct harm. However, environmental damage, such as pollution of a river or contamination of soil, affects the environment as a whole and indirectly impacts a large number of people and future generations. Reparation for environmental damage aims to address this broader harm.

The M.C. Mehta judgment, while primarily discussing compensation for victims, laid the groundwork for making enterprises liable for the consequences of hazardous activities. The principle of Absolute Liability, when applied in environmental contexts, implies that the liability of the polluter includes the cost of repairing the damage caused to the environment.

This concept is reinforced and explicitly incorporated into the powers of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Section 15(1) of the NGT Act empowers the Tribunal to provide:

• (a) Relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage;
• (b) Restitution of property damaged; and
• (c) Restitution of the environment for such area as the Tribunal may think fit.

Section 17 of the NGT Act further clarifies the liability for environmental damage caused by accidents involving hazardous substances, stating that the owner is liable under the principle of absolute liability for payment of compensation for death, injury, property damage, and for the "damage to the environment".

Therefore, under the framework influenced by the Absolute Liability doctrine and enshrined in the NGT Act, the responsible party for environmental damage from hazardous activities is liable for:

• Compensation to victims: Covering costs related to death, personal injury, and property damage.
• Cost of Restoration/Remediation: Bearing the expenses required to clean up the pollution, restore degraded ecosystems, decontaminate soil or water, and take other measures to bring the environment back to its original or a near-original state. This is the reparation aspect.

The NGT frequently directs polluters to deposit funds or carry out specific remediation activities under expert supervision to restore the damaged environment. This ensures that the cost of environmental repair is borne by the entity that caused the harm, rather than the government or the public. This aligns with the 'Polluter Pays' principle, which is closely linked with Absolute Liability in the Indian context.

Reparation for environmental damage is a crucial component of environmental justice, ensuring that the harm caused to natural resources and ecosystems is addressed and not simply externalised by the polluting enterprise.