Absolute liability is the principle by which any corporation or industry engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is made absolutely liable for any injury caused as a result of its operations. The principle was evolved in our home country India in the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986) and thereby it influenced many subsequent case laws in the nation.

The objective of this article is to understand the context and reason for the adoption of this doctrine and how it proves beneficial for people, especially in tribal areas and hamlets, where most of these industries are located. It also clearly presents a picture of differentiation between the rules of strict and absolute liability. Absolute liability is basically strict liability without defences.

Narrative Behind The Introduction Of The Doctrine Of Absolute Liability

The doctrine of Absolute liability had its genesis in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India wherein the escape route (exceptions to the principle of strict liability as laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher) for industries engaged in 'hazardous and inherently dangerous activities' was limited so as to protect the rights of people who suffered due to the harm caused by those industries.

Facts Of The Case:
The case was set on the background of the 'The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Case' where the leakage of Methyl isocyanate (MIL) gas caused fatality to 3,000 people and infliction of serious diseases to thousand others. The doctrine of Absolute liability was evolved in the M.C Mehta case passed on 20th December 1986 which also became applicable to the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Case.

On 4-6th December 1985 the toxic gas oleum was released in the capital Delhi from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries. Several people were affected as a result of this leakage and a practicing advocate in Hazari Court died in its consequence. Public Interest Litigation was filed and action was brought about according to Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Loopholes Present In The Rule Of Strict Liability:

• If damage is caused but there was no escape of a dangerous thing.
• If the substance that caused damage escaped as an act of a stranger.
• If the damage caused was not foreseeable.
• If there was no non-natural use of land.
• Presence of defenses - Plaintiff's consent, Act of God, and Statutory Authority.

Then the defence could be pleaded by the defendant.

Evolution Of The Doctrine:
The seven-judge bench led by Justice P.N. Bhagwati took a bold step to evolve the doctrine of Absolute liability holding it was not bound to follow the rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher by the English Court and follow legislations that suited the socio-economic conditions of India. It was of the view that the idea of strict liability was relevant when India was not however innovatively proficient as it seems to be believed to be today. The requirements and fundamentals of Strict liability simply don't consider every contingency that it can to safeguard individuals that are hurt because of risky things. Subsequently to meet the new time of businesses and consequently much more risky substances and perilous exercises, another standard was to be kept to nail liability to such ventures.

In India, agriculture is a typical and far and wide area of occupation. Subsequently, the putting away of a lot of water on one's property turns out to be very typical and gets away from the ambit of 'non-natural use' of land, as was laid out in Rylands v Fletcher. In different pieces of the country too, there might be the utilization of specific things and execution of specific exercises that might go under the umbrella term of 'non-natural use of land' in different nations, yet not in the thickly populated and agricultural nation like India. In this way, India required a rule that could take care of its own necessities, and not a copy of the regulations made in Britain.

The significant party designated in applying the Absolute liability rule are industries and operations that utilizes or produces risky or innately perilous substances in its premises. These businesses were absent before and hence the Strict liability rule could be utilized on an overall premise. These ventures presently use the nation's assets and moreover likewise represent a gamble to the residents. This Absolute liability rule makes it obligatory for ventures to assume a sense of ownership with their harms totally and non-debatably so the wellbeing and prosperity of the locals and society are given need.

Essentials For The Rule Of Absolute Liability:

The court in its judgment brought forth the following two essentials to establish guilt in the principle of absolute liability:

• Presence of inherently dangerous or hazardous thing.
• Results in any sort of injury.

Hazardous defined under Section 2 of the Public Liability Insurance Act 1991, is 'any substance or preparation which is defined as hazardous substance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986), and exceeding such quantity as may be specified, by notification, by the Central Government'.
 

Subsequent Case Laws To Which The Afore Doctrine Was Applied:

• Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984): This was the case that was kept in mind of the judges while deciding upon the M.C. Mehta case and it was too influenced by the latter case. The case of M.C. Mehta acted as a precedent in this case, and a sum of 470 million US dollars or 750 crores Indian rupees was to be paid by the Union Carbide Corporation to the victims of the deadly leakage.
• National Green Tribunal (NGT) Cases: The doctrine has been made applicable to many environmental cases asserting that industries must be held liable for the injury caused as a result of engaging in such hazardous activities regardless of the fact that whether they were negligent or not.

Legislative Framework For The Industries Engaged In Hazardous Activities:

• The Public Liability Insurance Act (1991): This act provides indemnity for the injury occurred to an individual or some property in the process of handling any hazardous substance. Insurance policy needs to be taken in this matter within maximum one year from the initiation of this Act. The liability is based on the 'no fault liability' principle wherein a person is held liable although he was not negligent or had taken due care and precaution.

Difference Between Strict Liability And Absolute Liability:

• Essentials elements: The doctrine of strict liability incorporates essentials such as non-natural use of land, presence of dangerous element whose escape causes injury, whereas in the case of absolute liability, the essentials include the presence of hazardous and inherently dangerous elements that result in any sort of harm.
• The concept of 'no fault liability': Both the doctrines follow the concept of no-fault liability, but absolute liability imposes an austere version of it and does not allow any exceptions.
• Central role: Usually, strict liability covers cases related to dangerous acts of individuals, whereas absolute liability revolves around industries.
• Escape of dangerous element: Escape serves as a necessary element for strict liability, whereas it is immaterial in the case of absolute liability.
• Exceptions: Absolute liability undertakes no exceptions, while some exceptions are present in the cases of strict liability as:
  • Plaintiff's own fault: If the plaintiff is himself at some fault which leads to the escape of a dangerous thing, this would serve as a good defense for the defendant.
  • Act of God: If the plaintiff suffers harm as a result of an 'extraordinary, unprecedented' natural calamity, the defendant is not going to be liable for the same. This also includes outbreaks of epidemics.
  • Consent of the plaintiff: If the plaintiff consents explicitly or implicitly (like co-enjoying benefits of something) to the possession of the element that caused injury, the defendant would be able to escape liability in the case.
  • Act of the stranger: If the escape was a result of an action by a third party.
  • Statutory authority: If it is provided in any act or statute that the defendant will not be liable for the commission of a certain act.

Landmark judgment: Rylands v. Fletcher laid the concept of strict liability and the concept of absolute liability was introduced in India in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.

Exceptions To The Doctrine Of Absolute Liability If Any:

While the rule evolved in Rylands v. Fletcher recognizes Plaintiff's own fault, Vis Major or Act of God, Act of third party and Consent of Plaintiff as valid defences, the doctrine of absolute liability is based on the concept of 'polluter pays', wherein if the corporation yearns profit from a certain hazardous act, it is also liable to bear for all the losses incurred to injured as a result of that dangerous activity. In sum, the defendant will be absolutely liable for any injury caused in the case of absolute liability and can't use any ground as a valid defence.

Conclusion
The doctrine of absolute liability as evolved in Indian sub-context in M.C. Mehta case served as a tool of justice for those who suffered harms at the hand of corporations. Before the introduction of the doctrine, the entity was able to plead defence on any of the grounds of defences of strict liability but this rule fixed the liability to bear the losses upon corporation for the hazardous activity they undertake.

The growth of Indian industries too served as a major cause for the introduction of this doctrine. The old strict liability rule was introduced when the Indian economy was not on a path of growth of various sects of economy and would be unable to cope up with the current socio-economics context of India.

Additionally, the doctrine is designed in such a manner to serve interests of tribal people or village people who are placed near to the industries where such hazardous occupations take place. As opposite to strict liability, this doctrine incorporates concepts of 'no-fault liability' and 'polluter pays'. It varies evidently from strict liability and would be subject to various evolutions with the advancement of technology and rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Declaration:
I, Aarya Singh, currently a first year student at Chanakya National Law University, hereby declare that the article titled 'Absolute Liability' is an authentic record of my work and I have not submitted this work anywhere else. I am fully responsible for the content of this project.

Written By: Aarya Singh, First Year Student - Chanakya National Law University

References:

• https://blog.ipleaders.in/evolution-of-absolute-liability-in-india/#Oleum_Gas_Leak_Case