Home › CLAT PG › law › constitutional_law_advanced › In M C Mehta v Union of India (1986), the Suprem…
In M C Mehta v Union of India (1986), the Supreme Court evolved the principle of 'absolute liability' for hazardous industrial activity. This principle is DISTINGUISHABLE from the English rule in Rylands v Fletcher in that
AAbsolute liability applies only to the Union
BAbsolute liability has no exceptions (no act-of-God, plaintiff's fault or third-party intervention defence) in the Indian formulation
CAbsolute liability requires proof of negligence
DAbsolute liability is confined to nuclear accidents
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: B. Absolute liability has no exceptions (no act-of-God, plaintiff's fault or third-party intervention defence) in the Indian formulation
M C Mehta (Oleum Gas Leak) held that an enterprise engaged in hazardous activity is ABSOLUTELY liable for harm to those affected by accident in such operation, without the Rylands v Fletcher exceptions. The principle was applied later in the Bhopal context.
Related questions
Under the doctrine of 'pith and substance', if a law enacted by one legislature INCIDENTALArticle 311(2) provides that a civil servant cannot be dismissed, removed or reduced in raUnder Article 13(2), any law made by the State 'in contravention' of the Fundamental RightS R Bommai v Union of India (1994) significantly curtailedWhich decision laid down that Article 21's 'procedure established by law' must be just, fa'Prospective overruling' as a constitutional technique was introduced in India inDoctrine of 'colourable legislation' is BEST captured by the maximUnder Article 142, the Supreme Court has power to pass any order necessary for doing 'comp