Evolution of Strict Liability in India: From Rylands v. Fletcher to M.C. Mehta

Introduction

Law is not static; it develops with society. As new challenges arise, legal principles evolve to protect people, property, and the environment. . When people live together, work together, and industrialize, accidents are bound to happen. The legal system needs to decide who will bear the loss when such accidents occur – the victim, the public at large, or the person who created the risk.

One such principle of strict liability, which has played a key role in shaping tort law in India. To understand its journey, we need to begin with its origin in England and then trace how Indian courts adapted and expanded it in response to industrial and environmental realities.

In 19th century England, when industries were rapidly growing. Over time, it was adopted in India. However, the unique conditions of a densely populated and industrially expanding country like India demanded a stronger, more uncompromising principle. This gave birth to absolute liability, developed by the Indian Supreme Court in the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986).

This article traces this journey – from the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher to its transformation into absolute liability in India – along with case laws, statutory backing, and its importance in environmental jurisprudence.

Part I – Origin: Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)

The foundation of strict liability lies in the famous English case Rylands v. Fletcher.
In this case:

The Facts

• Fletcher owned a coal mine.
• Rylands, the defendant, built a reservoir on his land to supply water.
• When the reservoir was filled, water leaked through old mine shafts and flooded Fletcher’s mine.
• Rylands had employed independent contractors and was not personally negligent.
• Although Rylands had not acted negligently, the court held him responsible.

The Decision

The rule of strict liability laid down was:

“A person who, for his own purposes, brings and keeps on his land anything likely to cause harm if it escapes, must keep it at his peril. If it escapes, he is liable for the damage, regardless of negligence.” – Justice Blackburn

This principle was revolutionary because liability did not depend on negligence or wrongful intention. If something dangerous escaped and caused harm, the person keeping it was responsible.

However, English courts recognized exceptions such as:

• Act of God (natural disasters)
• Plaintiff’s own fault
• Consent of the plaintiff
• Statutory authority

Key Elements of Strict Liability

1. Dangerous thing – There must be a dangerous substance (water, gas, explosives, toxic chemicals).
2. Escape – The substance must escape from the defendant’s property to another’s.
3. Non-natural use of land – The use must be extraordinary or unusual (not ordinary domestic use).

Exceptions (Defenses) to Strict Liability

The English courts carved out several exceptions:

• Plaintiff’s fault – If the damage was partly the plaintiff’s own doing.
• Act of God – Natural events like storms, earthquakes.
• Act of a third party – If a stranger interfered.
• Consent of the plaintiff – If the plaintiff consented to the risk.
• Statutory authority – If the act was authorized by law.

This principle worked well for 19th-century industrial England, balancing fairness with the interests of industrial growth.

Adoption in India

India, following common law traditions, adopted the Rylands v. Fletcher principle. For many years, Indian courts applied strict liability in industrial and accident-related cases.

But with industrialization, chemical plants, large factories, and hazardous industries grew rapidly. Traditional strict liability, with its many exceptions, often left victims without fair compensation. This gap was most visible in cases involving environmental and industrial disasters.

Part II – Strict Liability in India

India, inheriting common law principles, applied the Rylands v. Fletcher rule in many cases. Courts recognized the need to hold industries and individuals accountable even in the absence of negligence.

Some Indian Cases Before M.C. Mehta

1. Madras Railway Co. v. Zamindar of Carvatenagaram (1874) – The railway was held liable when fire from an engine set dry grass on fire.
2. Gujarat State Road Transport Corp. v. Ramanbhai (1987) – Compensation was awarded to victims of motor accidents on the principle of no-fault liability (though statutory, it reflected strict liability).

Yet, the Indian reality was different from 19th-century England. India was experiencing rapid industrialization, with factories, chemical plants, and hazardous industries being set up near residential areas. The rule of strict liability, with its long list of exceptions, often failed to deliver justice.

Part III – The Trigger: Industrial Disasters in India

The Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984)

• On the night of 2–3 December 1984, toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas leaked from the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal.
• Thousands died, and lakhs suffered permanent injuries.
• The company tried to avoid liability by pointing to exceptions under strict liability.
• The tragedy showed that the traditional rule of strict liability was inadequate for India’s industrial hazards.

This incident created strong pressure on the judiciary to evolve a stricter principle.

Shift Towards Absolute Liability: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986)

The turning point came with the case of Oleum Gas Leak (1985) in Delhi.

Facts:

• In December 1985, oleum gas leaked from Shriram Foods and Fertilizers, a private company in Delhi from its plant.
• The leakage caused deaths and injuries to people living nearby. One lawyer died, and several others were injured.
• PILs were filed by environmentalist M.C. Mehta, leading to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.

This case became the foundation for a new principle of absolute liability.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court, led by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, and Justice R.S. Pathak declared a new principle of “absolute liability” for hazardous industries.

 Key features of absolute liability:

1. Enterprises engaged in hazardous activities have absolute liability.

• An enterprise engaged in dangerous activities owes a duty to the community to ensure no harm is caused.
• They are liable to compensate for harm caused to people, even without proof of negligence.
• They cannot use exceptions like Act of God or third-party intervention.

2. Doctrine of Absolute Liability – Indian innovation.

• Unlike Rylands v. Fletcher, no exceptions are allowed, industries engaged in hazardous activities cannot escape liability by claiming Act of God, plaintiff’s fault, or statutory authority.
• Liability is absolute and non-delegable.
• Even if the enterprise took all precautions, it is still liable.

3. Compensation must match the ability of the enterprise.
   • The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater its liability.
   • This ensures justice for victims.

Thus, absolute liability was stricter than strict liability, crafted specifically for modern India, where industrial accidents could devastate thousands

Why a New Rule?

The Court explained that India’s industrial environment, with dense populations and hazardous industries near urban centers, required a stronger doctrine than that of 19th-century England.

Thus, absolute liability became part of Indian law, independent of English common law.

Part IV – Difference between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability

Part V– Later Developments in India

After M.C. Mehta, Indian law developed further around environmental protection and victim compensation.The principle of absolute liability became a cornerstone of environmental and tort law in India. Some important cases and legislations that followed include:

1. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)

• Chemical industries released toxic waste into water sources in Rajasthan.
• The Court applied absolute liability, holding polluting industries responsible.
• Strengthened the “Polluter Pays Principle.”

2. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

• Case about tanneries polluting rivers in Tamil Nadu.
• The Court held that development must balance with environmental protection.
• Introduced the “Precautionary Principle / Polluter Pays Principle,” and reinforced absolute liability.

3. Sterlite Industries v. Union of India (2013)

• The Supreme Court imposed heavy fines on Sterlite for causing environmental damage.
• Again, absolute liability was applied.

Recent Developments: 2020–2024

Even after M.C. Mehta, industrial disasters have not stopped in India. Modern cases show why the doctrine of absolute liability is still crucial.

1. Vizag LG Polymers Gas Leak (2020)

• What Happened?
  On 7 May 2020, toxic styrene gas leaked from the LG Polymers plant in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
  • 12 people died, including children.
  • Around 1000 were injured, and villages within 5 km were affected.
• Legal Response
  • The National Green Tribunal (NGT) immediately took suo motu (on its own) cognizance.
  • NGT applied the principle of absolute liability, holding LG Polymers fully responsible.
  • A fine of ₹50 crore was imposed on the company as interim compensation.
• Importance
  This case reaffirmed that absolute liability is not a dead letter of law; it continues to guide modern environmental justice.

2. Sterlite Copper Plant Case, Tamil Nadu (2018–2021)

• Background: The Sterlite copper smelter plant in Thoothukudi was accused of polluting the environment and harming public health.
• Legal Outcome: In 2018, the Tamil Nadu government ordered permanent closure of the plant after protests. The Supreme Court in 2021 refused to reopen it, citing environmental safety.
• Relevance: Again, the “polluter pays” principle and absolute liability formed the backbone of the reasoning.

3. Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India (2017, implemented till 2022)

• Supreme Court directed all industries to have functional effluent treatment plants (ETPs).
• Industries found polluting without treatment plants could face closure.
• This case reflects how absolute liability pushes industries toward preventive care, not just post-damage compensation.

• 2023–2024 Developments-

• National Green Tribunal (NGT) Orders:
  NGT has repeatedly used the principle of absolute liability for accidents like chemical leaks, river pollution, and industrial fires.
  Example: In 2023, NGT ordered Grasim Industries to pay compensation for pollution caused in Madhya Pradesh.
• Supreme Court on Sustainable Development (2023):
  The Court linked absolute liability with the constitutional duty under Article 21 (Right to Life), stressing that a clean and safe environment is a fundamental right.

Part VI – Legislative Backing

The principle of strict/absolute liability also influenced legislation:

1. Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Gave the government wide powers to protect and improve the environment.
2. Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 – Required industries dealing with hazardous substances to take insurance for quick relief to victims.
3. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Established NGT with powers to award compensation and enforce the polluter-pays principle.

These laws show how judicial principles were incorporated into statutory frameworks.

Importance of This Evolution

The shift from strict liability to absolute liability was not just a legal development but also a social necessity in India.

• With rapid industrialization, hazardous activities became common near populated areas.
• Traditional rules with exceptions were inadequate to ensure justice for victims.
• Absolute liability placed the responsibility firmly on enterprises, making them more careful.
• It also balanced economic development with environmental and human safety.

Part VII – Importance of This Evolution

1. Protection of citizens – Victims of industrial accidents now have stronger legal remedies.
2. Responsibility of industries – Hazardous industries must take extra care, knowing they cannot escape liability.
3. Environmental justice – The law ensures industries bear the cost of pollution, not the public.
4. Balance of growth and safety – Encourages sustainable development.

The Way Forward

1. Strengthening enforcement – Laws exist, but poor implementation leads to repeated disasters. Strict monitoring of hazardous industries is needed.
2. Corporate responsibility – Companies must adopt international safety standards, not just minimum compliance.
3. Victim-centered compensation – Quick, fair, and adequate relief should be available without long court battles.
4. Preventive approach – Instead of waiting for accidents, industries must be compelled to adopt safer technologies.

Conclusion

The journey from Rylands v. Fletcher to M.C. Mehta marks a powerful evolution in Indian tort law. While the former introduced the world to strict liability, the latter transformed it into absolute liability, tailored for India’s industrial and environmental challenges.

This evolution reflects the judiciary’s proactive role in ensuring that development does not come at the cost of human lives and ecological safety. Today, absolute liability stands as a reminder that those who profit from dangerous activities must also bear the full cost of the risks they create.

The doctrine of strict liability began in 19th-century England with Rylands v. Fletcher. India took it further, giving birth to absolute liability in M.C. Mehta to meet its unique industrial and environmental challenges.

From the Bhopal Gas Tragedy to the Oleum Gas Leak, and from the Vizag LG Polymers disaster (2020) to recent NGT orders, absolute liability has become the backbone of Indian environmental jurisprudence.

It is not just a legal rule but a principle of social justice, ensuring that those who profit from hazardous industries also bear the risks they create. The evolution shows that law must constantly adapt, keeping human life, safety, and environmental protection at its center.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India