​Though the concept of absolute liability has its root as back as 19th century, but this concept arrived quite late into India. Only after the Oleum Gas Leak Case occurred, that the judiciary realized the need of strict and absolute enforcement of liability into the Indian Context. Till now what was being followed, was the doctrine enshrined in the Common Law, but it received modification in India in the form of the introduction to the concept of absolute liability.

The following modifications in the existing doctrine of the case of Rylands v. Fletcher1 led to the doctrine of absolute liability that prevented the defendants of M.C. Mehta v. UOI Case from taking up any defence against payment of compensation:-
If an industry or enterprise is involved in any inherently dangerous activity, then for any damage arising out of the conduction of that activity, the defendants (the owners of the industry) will have no access to any defence or exception and will be absolutely liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties.

The enterprise will be held responsible for all possible damages or consequences resulting from the activity. This will make such industries provide safety equipment to its workers to prevent any mishap. Therefore, this will safeguard the interests of the workers and will give them a refined, safe working atmosphere.

In cases where strict liability applies, compensation paid is according to the nature and quantum of damages caused but in cases of absolute liability, compensation or damage to be paid is exemplary in nature. The amount decided upon should be more than the damage caused as industrial hazardous accidents generally causes mass death and destruction of property and environment.

The principle of absolute liability was considered as a tool of prevention of mass destruction or avoidance of danger to life of masses. But with the transition of the concept of liability, courts started applying this concept whenever and wherever wellbeing of any individual is concerned. Absolute liability can also be upheld by the courts in case of a single death without any mass destruction of property or pollution of the environment. This was held in the case of Klaus Mittelbachert vs. East India Hotels Ltd.2. In this case, the plaintiff who was a German co-pilot suffered serious injuries after he dived into the swimming pool of a five-star restaurant. After investigation, it was found out that the pool had a defective design and also insufficient amount of water.

The pilot’s injuries made him paralyzed which consequently lead to his death after 13 years of the accident. The court held that five-star hotels that charge hefty amounts owe a high degree of care to its guests. This was violated by Hotel Oberoi Inter-continental, New Delhi where because of the defectively designed swimming pool, the plaintiff died a painful death. This made the hotel absolutely liable for payment of damages to the plaintiff. The compensation of Rs.50 lakhs was decided by the court for the plaintiff for the accident caused.

In India, absolute liability is a standard of both tortious and criminal liability which stipulates that … where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher.3

Though India follow the English laws since pre-independence, necessary amendments had been made from time to time to suit the requirement of time. Many rules which were not quite applicable according to the Indian context, had been modified accordingly. As far as the doctrine of absolute liability is concerned, it was not touched upon even in the English laws. Slowly and gradually change occurred. In the Indian context, it came even more lately. Only after two tragic incidents of Bhopal Gas Tragedy and Oleum Gas Leak occurred, the Indian judiciary realized the need of modification of principles to suit the Indian Context. New principles have to be evolved and new norms have to be laid down which would adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a highly industrialised economy.4

Below mentioned are some of the landmark judgements delivered by the Supreme Court on absolute liability-

M.C. Mehta v/s UOI (1987):

This case is considered to be landmark both in the field of Tort and Criminal Law. The case deals with the aftermath of the oleum gas leakage from Shriram Food and Fertilizers Ltd. Complex in Delhi. This company dealt with manufacture of hazardous chemicals. As the accident occurred soon after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, it created huge panic. The leakage caused death of a person and few had to be hospitalized.

On 6th of December 1985, the District Magistrate of Delhi ordered Shriram Ltd. to permanently stop the manufacturing and processing work of hazardous chemicals at their establishment. M.C. Mehta, moved to the Supreme Court by filing a PIL and claiming compensation for the losses caused and also demanded that the closed establishment should not start again. On this question the debate arose on developing a new doctrine of liability and the measure of such liability for an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry. Another significant question which arose in this debate was that whether the same rule will be applied which had been evolved from 1866 case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher or not? If not, then is any other principle of liability present on which this particular case scenario could be applied.

The liability in Ryland’s case was strict and no defence was given for a person’s involuntary act, default, negligence or zero knowledge of its existence. This rule applied only to the non-natural use of the land, and was not applicable to the things escaping naturally from the land or where escape was caused due to act of God, or by an act of stranger. It also didn’t count the consent of the plaintiff or the statutory authority.

The court arrived to a conclusion that whenever any company or enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, and an accident occurs in handling these substances resulting escape of toxic substance, then, in that case, the defendant would be strictly and absolutely liable to compensate the plaintiffs. Such kind of a liability will not be subject to any exceptions present under the tortious principle of strict liability enshrined in the case of Ryland Vs. Fletcher. Also, as far as calculation of compensation is concerned, the court decided that it will be parallel to the magnitude and capacity of the defendant. This will create a deterrent effect amongst all.

Supreme Court of India, analysing the need of modification in 19th century principle of strict liability, stated in the M.C. Mehta case … Moreover the principle so established in Rylands Vs. Fletcher of strict liability cannot be used in the modern world, as the very principle was evolved in the 19th century and in the period when the industrial revolution has just begun, this two century old principle of tortious liability cannot be taken as it is in the modern world without modifications.5

Similarly, in the case of M.C. Mehta, Justice Bhagwati also stated that the rule of strict liability was evolved in the 19th century, the time when natural industrial developments was at primary stage, in today’s modern industrialized society where hazardous or inherently dangerous industries are necessary to carry out development programme, thus this old rule cannot be held relevant in the present day context. Also, one cannot feel inhibited by this rule which was evolved in the context of totally different economic and social structure. 6
 

Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1991):

Bhopal Gas tragedy, up till this day remains one of the world’s worst industrial disaster. It occurred between 2-3 December,1984 in the city of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. This tragedy took place because of leakage of methyl isocyanate (MIC) Gas from the Union Carbide India Ltd. (UCIL) plant which manufactured pesticides. It is alleged that the accident occurred because most of the safety measure systems were not functioning and those which were functioning, were in a condition too poor to avert the mishap.7 The toxic gas release engulfed the entire city and caused death of approx. 4000 people and nearly 1.5 lakhs were injured.

In February 1985, the Indian Government filed a case in the U.S. Supreme Court claiming $3.3 billion from UCIL. But the case was transferred to India in 1986 on the grounds of forum non conveniens. In the meantime, in 1985 Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act was passed to empower the Central Government to be the sole representative of the victims for speedy justice. But instead of following the procedure of law, an out of court settlement deal took place between GoI and UCIL for full and final settlement of $740 million. It also limited liability of UCIL for all civil and criminal claims. This deal was widely criticized and a no. of review petitions were filed at the Supreme Court to question the validity of the settlement order. The order was criticized because the compensation settled was too less for all the victims and absence of re-opener clause would prevent any future claim against UCIL. In the judgement delivered on October 3, 1991, all these contentions were rejected by the Supreme Court by upholding the validity of the settlement order except the clause quashing criminal proceedings.

One of the main issues which this tragedy raises is the issue of absolute liability. Being absolutely liable makes the party anticipate for the worst, even if it is highly unlikely so that possibility of occurring any mishap is reduced to zero. Even if the company keeps its stand of taking all necessary precautions, responsibility still lies on them. This principle, if applied accordingly, would not have only created a deterrence amongst companies for taking full proof measures against any unforeseen event but would also make them fully liable for the accident if caused. If not for the settlement order, then according to this principle, UCIL would have been answerable for the sufferings of every single victim of this tragedy and would also have to be compelled to provide the necessary and adequate compensation thus satisfying the notion of proportionate justice. Understanding this principle, it was applied in the M.C. Mehta Case. Thus, it can be said that the principle of Absolute liability evolved in India primarily because of the awakening created by the Bhopal Gas leak Tragedy and Oleum Gas Case.

Uphaar Cinema Case (1997): A fire had broken out in the Uphaar Cinema located in South Delhi during the screening of the movie Border, on 13th of June 1997, due to faulty wire connections. It caused death of 59 people and injured 100. The fire was caused when bigger of the two installed transformers caught fire. These transformers had developed issues repeatedly but no proper repair work was conducted. Because of loose connections, sparking happened which lead to a massive fire. Illegal extensions, blocked exists and additional seats added more to the chaos.

It was held that even if there was no negligence but it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that there were statutory violations of the safety standards by the authorities, then these violations will be sufficient for the court to hold the Respondents liable for compensation to the victims of the unfortunate incident and also for damages.8 Moreover, as the installation of the transformer was a non-natural use, the rule of both strict and absolute liability will be applicable. It is a hazardous object which always carries a danger of short circuit.9
 

The Relevance of Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

This Act has been incorporated on 22nd January 1991. This Act has been established to provide immediate insurance for the person who met with an accident while handling hazardous substance and other similar circumstances. This will help the weaker section of the people who handles such hazardous substances and chemicals from delayed relief of compensation. This act provides immediate insurance relief to such person with genuine inquiry occurring through an accident as prescribed in this Act.

All owners of such factory or industry handling hazardous substance shall take several insurance policies in order to provide immediate relief to its own employee during such unforeseen accident or injury or even death while handling such chemicals or substances. No person shall claim for relief in case if such accident occurs due to his own wrong handling or negligence.

Conclusion
The principle of strict and absolute liability is the one “plaintiff oriented” liability of criminal and tort law wherein it is ensured that if the victim suffers loss of property or life, then it gets compensated as soon as possible. No one must suffer due to negligence of others. Moreover, if the danger arises due to an inherently hazardous substance, then the full responsibility to avoid any mishap must be rested with the owner. In such cases, no leniency of any exception or defences must be given. The provision of absolute liability assures this. It is a defence without any exception.

But absolute liability, has not always been a defence without any exception. Earlier, owing to unforeseen or unnatural incidents or the absence of mens rea, the defendant could get away clean-handed. Slowly and gradually, the need of a stricter form of liability was felt which lead to the onset of this principle. Thus this principle evolved through transition to render needful justice. Not just this particular doctrine, any law which becomes dormant due to transformation of society, must be evolved.

The judiciary in this regards has the crucial role to play as it is the organ responsible to modify laws to adjust to the demands of the society. The progressive approach undertaken by the Indian Judges in the case of M.C. Mehta is appreciable and must be continued. They had the viewpoint that they cannot afford to wait for the English Law to change as far as bringing change to the Indian legal system is concerned. They must be updated with the progress of the society and mould laws which cater to the need of the public. The transition of the principle of absolute liability had brought positive results in its applicability, therefore it must be ensured that the transitional growth of this principle and other laws continues by transformative judgements.

End-Notes
1. Rylands v. Fletcher, UKHL 1 (1868)
2. Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd., Delhi201 (1997).
3. M.C. Mehta v. UOI SC 1086 (1987).
4. Assn. of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v. UOI ACC 114 (2003).
5. 248, W.V.H. Rogers, Winfield And Jolowicz Torts, 8th ed. (2010).
6. Supra note 3.
7. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India 4 SCC 548 (1991).
8. Assn. of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, supra note 4.
9. Ibid.
10. Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, No. 6, Acts of Parliament, 1991(India).