← The hardest concepts in Indian law
In one breath
In India an enterprise that carries on a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity must compensate everyone harmed by an escape of the danger, without proof of negligence and without the exceptions allowed by the English rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The Supreme Court laid this down in M C Mehta, so that the cost of the harm falls on the enterprise and not on the victims.
The picture
The keeper of the tiger
A person who keeps a tiger in a garden is not asked whether the keeper was careless on a given day. The tiger is dangerous by nature, the keeper chose to have it, and the keeper takes the whole risk. If the tiger gets out and mauls a passer-by, the keeper pays, even if a stranger had left the gate open.
Rylands v Fletcher made a person who brings a dangerous thing onto land liable for its escape, but allowed defences such as act of God, the act of a stranger and the claimant’s consent. In M C Mehta, after a leak of gas from a factory in Delhi, the Court said that India need not wait for English law to develop and set out a stricter rule. An enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community, and if harm results it must compensate, with no exceptions. The amount is to be related to the size and capacity of the enterprise, so that it has a deterrent effect.
Where the picture stops working
A tiger is an obvious danger, but whether an activity counts as hazardous or inherently dangerous is a question the courts decide case by case, and the boundary is not sharply drawn. The statement of the rule in M C Mehta has also been described as going beyond what the case needed to decide, and later cases have applied it together with the polluter-pays principle. Parliament has enacted statutes on hazardous substances and on environmental claims, and these may displace or supplement the common law rule.
How it really works
- 1Identify the enterprise and the activity, and ask whether the activity is hazardous or inherently dangerous, such as toxic chemicals or gas.
- 2Identify the harm and the persons affected, and check that the harm resulted from the activity, for example an escape of gas or a chemical.
- 3Apply absolute liability: no proof of negligence is needed, and the defences of act of God and act of a stranger are not available.
- 4Assess compensation by reference to the size and capacity of the enterprise, so that the amount deters it and others.
- 5Remember the remedies available: a tort action, a writ petition for compensation, and the statutory claims schemes where they apply.
Why people get it wrong
- Treating absolute liability as the same as strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher. The Indian rule has no exceptions and applies to hazardous activity, not only to escape from land.
- Thinking that all businesses are covered. The rule applies to hazardous or inherently dangerous activity.
- Forgetting the link with the size of the enterprise. A rich enterprise pays more, so as to deter it.
- Treating the 1987 statement as the end of the story. Later decisions and statutes have developed environmental liability further.
A worked example
The facts are invented
A large chemical plant stores a toxic gas on the edge of a town. A tank cracks and the gas drifts across several streets, making many residents ill. A stranger had opened a valve earlier in the night, though the plant’s guards had not noticed.
Under the Rylands v Fletcher rule the plant might say that the act of a stranger breaks the chain. Under absolute liability the plant owes a non-delegable duty to the community and cannot rely on that defence. The residents need not prove negligence. The Court can order compensation measured by the plant’s size, and it may also direct measures to clean up and prevent recurrence.
Try it
A hazardous factory releases toxic gas because of the act of a stranger who tampered with a valve. What is the factory’s position under the Indian rule of absolute liability?
Landmark authorities
Read the sources themselves; this list is a starting point.
- Rylands v Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330
- M C Mehta v Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395
- Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212
Where to go next
Courses
Case briefs
Dictionary
More hard concepts in India law
- Part performance and lis pendens (Property law)
- Compensation for constitutional wrongs (Constitutional law and tort law)
This page is an educational overview. It is not legal advice and not a substitute for the sources: the statute, the rule, the case itself. India has a written Constitution, central and State legislation, and a unified court system under the Supreme Court. Each page states the usual formulation of the rule and names landmark decisions, with the citations as they are usually given in the Supreme Court Cases and All India Reporter series. The criminal codes and the law of evidence were replaced by new statutes, so the pages on criminal law state the doctrine and the decisions and mostly leave out section numbers; check the current text of any statute you rely on. Personal laws differ by community. This is a study aid, not legal advice, and an Indian advocate should check anything you need to rely on.