In This we discussed Hazardous Substance and activities to handle them , How Liabilities impose under Law to solve conflicts with the help of some cases.

1. Hazardous Substance and Activities :
Liabilities & Laws
By
Dr. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava
Assistant Professor
Law centre II
Faculty of Law
University of Delhi
9079298265

2. Liabilities in Environmental Matters
•Common Law, a derivative of Latin expression Lex-
Communis, refers to a body of customary Law of
England, which is based upon Judicial Decision.
• Though Common Law has its origin in England
continues to be in force in India as per Article 372 of
constitution of India in so far as it is not altered
repealed or altered or amended by competent
legislature.

3. Liabilities in Environmental matters
• The common Law remedies for environmental
matters are available under Law of Torts.
• To constitute a tort or civil injury
•1 There must be wrongful act committed by person
•2 The wrongful act must give rise to legal damage or
actual Damage
• 3 The wrongful act must be of such a nature as to
give rise to a legal remedy in the form of an action for
damages

4. Liabilities in Environmental matters
Tortuous Liabilities For environmental pollution are
available under following heads :
1. Negligence
2. Nuisance
3. Trespass

5. Liabilities in Environmental Matters
Negligence : it is breach of legal duty to take care
which results in damage undesired by defendant to
plaintiff
Definition involves three constituents of negligence :
1. A legal duty to exercise due care on part of party
2. Breach of said duties
3. Consequential Damage.
A general principle of Foreseeability and proximity
applicable in solving cases.

6. Liabilities in Environmental Matters
There are many activities which are so hazardous that
they constitute constant danger to person or property
The Law may deal with them in three ways :
1. It may prohibit them altogether
2. It may allow them to be carried on for the sake of
their social utility but only in accordance with
statutory provisions
3. Strict Liability

7. Strict Liability in Environment Matter
•The principle of Strict Liability was established in the
Case of Ryland vs. Fletcher 1868,
•In this wrong doer is strictly liable for their wrong
actions,
•Exception to the Strict Liability
•Act of God or Vis Major
•Wrongful Act of Third Party
•Plaintiff’s own fault
•Consent of Plaintiff
•Discharge of Public Duty

8. Absolute Liability
MC Metha vs Union of India AIR 1987
No Fault Liability : Absolute Liability
Where an enterprise is engaged in hazardous or
inherently dangerous activities and harm result to
anyone on account of an accident in operation of such
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting
for example in escape of toxic gas , the enterprise is
absolutely liable to all those who are effected by the
accident and such liability is not subject to any of the
exception which operate tortious principle of strict
liability.

9. Mass Tort Action
• Where the public at large are effected by tortuous
action called mass tort.
example :
Bhopal gas tragedy case
Oleum gas leake case

10. Legislation on Hazardous Substance
•Public Liability insurance Act 1991
•Hazardous waste ( Management and Handling ) Rules
1989, and amendment in 2000
•Rules for Manufacture , use , import , export, and
storage of hazardous microorganism, genitically
engineered organism or cells , 1993.
•Manufacture, storage and import of Hazardous
chemical Rules 1989.

11. MC Mehta v Union of India, 1987 AIR
1086 (Oleum Gas Leak case)
•The principle of absolute liability was laid down in the
case of MC. Mehta vs union of India
•Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries is manufacturer
of caustic chlorine including its by-products and recovery
plants like soap, glycerine and technical hard oil, etc.
• There was escape of oleum gas from one of the units of
Shriram on 4th and 6th December, 1985
• applications were filed by the Delhi Legal Aid & Advice
Board and the Delhi Bar Association for award of
compensation to the persons who had suffered harm on
account of escape of oleum gas.

12. MC Mehta v Union of India, 1987 AIR
1086 (Oleum Gas Leak case)
• We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted
by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the
matter of that in any other foreign country. We no longer
need the crutches of a foreign legal order. We are certainly
prepared to receive light from whatever source it comes
but we have to build up our own jurisprudence and we
cannot countenance an argument that merely because the
new law does not recog- nise the rule of strict and
absolute liability in cases of hazardous or dangerous
liability or the rule as laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher as
is developed in England recognises certain limitations and
responsibilities.

13. MC Mehta v Union of India, 1987 AIR 1086
(Oleum Gas Leak case)
We in India cannot hold our hands back and I venture
to evolve a new. principle of liability which English
courts have not done. We have to develop our own law
and if we find that it is necessary to construct a new
principle of liability to deal with an unusual situation
which has arisen and which is likely to arise in future
on account of hazardous or inherently dan- gerous
industries which are concommitant to an industrial
economy, there is no reason why we should hesitate to
evolve such principle of liability merely because it has
not been so done in England.

14. MC Mehta v Union of India, 1987 AIR
1086 (Oleum Gas Leak case)
• 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-a-
vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the
rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.

15. Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India,
AIR 1992 SC 248
•The Bhopal Gas incident occurred in December 1983
• The Union of India under the Bhopal Gas Leak
Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act of 1985 took upon
itself the right to sue for compensation on behalf of the
affected parties and filed a suit for realisation of
compensation.

16. Union Carbide Corporation v Union of
India, AIR 1992 SC 248
The suits were consolidated and Judge Keenan by his
order dated 12th May, 1988, dismissed them on the
ground of forum non conveniens, subject, inter alia, to the
following conditions:
1) Union Carbide shall consent to submit to the
jurisdiction of the Courts of India and shall continue to
waive defences based on the statute of limitations, and
2) Union Carbide shall agree to satisfy any judgment
rendered against it in an Indian Court, and if appealable,
upheld by any appellate court in that country, whether
such judgment and affirmance comport with the minimal
requirements of due process.

17. following findings are recorded and directions issued: UCC v. U O I
•For an expeditious disposal of the claims a time-
bound consideration and determination of the claims
are necessary.
• In the matter of administration and disbursement of
the compensation amounts determined, the guide-lines
contained in the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in
Muljibhai v. United India Insurance Co, are
required to be taken into account.
• For a period of 8 years facilities for medical
surveillance of the population of the Bhopal exposed
to MIC should be provided by periodical medical
check-up.

18. following findings are recorded and directions issued: UCC v. U O I
•In respect of the population of the affected wards,
[excluding those who have filed claims], Government
of India shall take out an appropriate medical group
insurance cover from the Life Insurance Corporation
of India or the General Insurance Corporation of India
for compensation to those who, though presently
symptomatic and filed no claims for compensation,
might become symptomatic in future and to those
later-born children who might manifest congenital or
prenatal MIC related afflictions.

19. following findings are recorded and directions issued: UCC v. U O I
• On humanitarian consideration and in fulfilment of
the offer made earlier, the UCC and UCIL should
agree to bear the financial burden for the
establishment and equipment of a hospital, and its
operational expenses for a period of eight years.

20. Relation of EPA Regulation and Liability
Therefore the Nature of liability for hazardous
substance is No fault liability i.e. Strict or absolute
liability.
By the virtue of Environmental Protection Act 1986
(EPA) Central Government may issue various
notification / regulation time to time to ensure liability
in handling hazardous material

21. Thank You