LANDMARK CASE

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak)

(1987) 1 SCC 395 · Supreme Court of India · Torts and environmental law

At a glance

  • Citation: (1987) 1 SCC 395
  • Court: Supreme Court of India
  • Area of law: Torts and environmental law
  • In one line: The Court laid down absolute liability, with none of the exceptions in Rylands v. Fletcher, and compensation linked to the enterprise's capacity.

1 Facts

Oleum gas leaked from a Shriram Foods and Fertilisers plant in Delhi, harming people nearby.

2 Issue

What liability does a hazardous industry have for harm caused by its activity?

3 What the court decided

The Court laid down absolute liability, with none of the exceptions in Rylands v. Fletcher, and compensation linked to the enterprise's capacity.

4 Why it matters

It created an Indian rule of liability stricter than English law, suited to industrial risks.

5 Think about it

Why did the Court reject the exceptions available under strict liability?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Kanpur Tanneries)M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium) →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.