Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India · 13 February 1996 · 2 judges · 1996 AIR 1446, 1996 SCC (3) 212
Chemical industries that polluted soil and groundwater at Bichhri were held absolutely liable under the Oleum Gas Leak rule and the polluter pays principle to bear the cost of remedial measures, and their plants were ordered closed.
Facts
Hindustan Agro Chemicals Limited and its sister units (respondents 4 to 8) operated a chemical complex in Bichhri village, Udaipur district, Rajasthan. Two units produced 'H' acid for export, generating about 2,440 tonnes of highly toxic iron and gypsum based sludge and large quantities of untreated waste water, which polluted wells, aquifers and farmland. Most units started without the consents required under the Water and Air Acts and kept operating despite closure orders. An environmental organisation filed a writ petition in 1989. Over the years the Supreme Court called for reports from the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board, a central expert team and NEERI, and passed orders on storing the sludge, which the respondents did not fully carry out. NEERI estimated remedial costs at over Rs. 40 crores.
Questions before the Court
- Whether the Court could, in a writ petition under Article 32, direct remedial action and recovery of its cost from private industries that had caused pollution in violation of law.
- What principle of liability applies to industries engaged in hazardous activities: the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher or the absolute liability rule of the Oleum Gas Leak Case.
- What directions should issue for remedying the damage at Bichhri.
What the Court held
- The petition sought to compel the Union, the State and the Pollution Control Board to perform statutory duties whose neglect undermined the villagers' right to life under Article 21. Where industries run in blatant disregard of law, the Court can intervene and give directions to ensure compliance.
- The absolute liability rule in the Oleum Gas Leak Case binds the Court and is more appropriate for India than Rylands v. Fletcher. A person carrying on a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity must make good the loss caused, whether or not reasonable care was taken. The Court disagreed that the Oleum statement was obiter.
- Respondents 4 to 8 were absolutely liable for the harm to villagers, soil and groundwater, and must remove the sludge and bear the cost of remedial measures. The polluter pays principle leads to the same result.
- Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 empower the Central Government to direct remedial measures and impose their cost on the offending industry. The Central Government was directed to determine and recover that amount; the respondents' plants were closed and their assets attached, and villagers were left to claim damages in civil suits.
Why it matters
The judgment applies the absolute liability rule of the Oleum Gas Leak Case to private industries and adopts the polluter pays principle, placing the cost of restoring a damaged environment on the polluter. It holds that the Central Government's powers under Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act include imposing the cost of remedial measures, and it commends the suggestion for environment courts, while noting that the issue needs study. It describes the respondents as 'rogue industries' that had defied the law and the Court's orders.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“We are convinced that the law stated by this Court in Oleum Gas Leak Case is by far the more appropriate one - apart from the fact that it is binding upon us. [We have disagreed with the view that the law stated in the said decision is obiter.] According to this rule, once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity.”
“Once the law in Oleum Gas Leak Case is held to be the law applicable, it follows, in the light of our findings recorded hereinbefore, that Respondents Nos.4 to 8 are absolutely liable to compensate for the harm caused by them to villagers in the affected area, to the soil and to the underground water and hence, they are bound to take all necessary measures to remove the sludge and other pollutants lying in the affected area”
“Thus, according to this principle, the responsibility for repairing the damage is that of the offending industry. Sections 3 and 5 empower the Central Government to give directions and take measures for giving effect to this principle.”
“This power includes the power to prohibit an activity, close an industry, direct and/or carry out remedial measures, and wherever necessary impose the cost of remedial measures upon the offending industry. The principle "Polluter Pays" has gained almost universal recognition, apart from the fact that it is stated in absolute terms in Oleum Gas Leak Case. The law declared in the said decision is the law governing this case.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Follows M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986)“We are convinced that the law stated by this Court in Oleum Gas Leak Case is by far the more appropriate one - apart from the fact that it is binding upon us.” (page 29)
- Followed in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
- Case
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 967 of 1989, with Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 76 of 1994, 94 of 1990 and 824 of 1993
- Decided
- 13 February 1996
- Bench
- B.P. Jeevan Reddy, B.N. Kirpal
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment delivered by B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.
Questions on this case
3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:
Question 1 · Law of Torts Practice Set 1
With reference to Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996), consider the following statements: 1. The Court held that the rule stated in the Oleum Gas Leak case was binding on it and was the more appropriate rule for India. 2. The Court agreed with the view that the law declared in the Oleum Gas Leak case was merely obiter. 3. Under the rule so applied, a person carrying on a hazardous activity is liable for the loss caused even if he took reasonable care. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A. 1 and 3 only
- B. 3 only
- C. 1 and 2 only
- D. 2 and 3 only
Show the answer
A. 1 and 3 only
In the Bichhri case (AIR 1996 SC 1446) the Court found the Oleum Gas Leak rule 'by far the more appropriate one', apart from its being binding, and expressly disagreed with the view that it was obiter. Under that rule liability arises irrespective of whether reasonable care was taken.