Absolute Liability — M.C. Mehta v. Union of India

India went beyond Rylands v. Fletcher. Faced with the Bhopal and Oleum disasters, the Supreme Court fashioned a stricter, exception-free rule for hazardous industry — absolute liability.

The Rule in M.C. Mehta (1987)

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) — the Oleum Gas Leak case, arising from an escape of oleum gas from a Delhi factory shortly after the Bhopal tragedy. The Supreme Court (Bhagwati C.J.) held that the century-old Rylands v. Fletcher rule, with its many exceptions, was inadequate for a modern industrial economy, and laid down a new rule of absolute liability:

An enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely liable to compensate all those harmed by an accident in that activity — with no exceptions, and the compensation must be correlated to the enterprise’s capacity to pay (so as to deter).

Strict vs Absolute Liability

flowchart TD
    A["Liability without fault"]:::root
    A --> B["STRICT — Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)<br/>escape + non-natural use, WITH exceptions"]:::leaf
    A --> C["ABSOLUTE — M.C. Mehta (1987)<br/>hazardous industry, NO exceptions,<br/>NO escape needed"]:::abs

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef abs fill:#FFE6E6,stroke:#8A1E1E,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

The principle was applied in the Bhopal Gas Leak litigation and later given statutory shape by the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

📄 Get all 5 units — Notes + Question Bank (₹199) with 50+ solved problems and 16-mark essay blueprints. Buy the bundle · Free Unit 1 sample · All Law of Torts topics