MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987) is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India that established the principle of “absolute liability” in cases of environmental pollution. The case involved a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta against the Union of India, the State of Delhi, and several private companies, alleging that they were responsible for polluting the River Yamuna and causing environmental damage.
The case was heard over several years and resulted in several important judgments by the Supreme Court. The first judgment, delivered in 1984, established that the polluter is liable to pay compensation for the damage caused to the environment and held that the principle of “absolute liability” applies in cases of environmental pollution. Absolute liability means that the polluter is strictly liable for any harm caused by its actions, regardless of whether it took reasonable care to prevent the harm.
In the second judgment, delivered in 1985, the court ordered the closure of several polluting industries located near the river and directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to take steps to clean up the river. The court also ordered the DDA to compensate affected residents for any loss or damage suffered as a result of the pollution.
The third and final judgment, delivered in 1987, clarified the meaning and scope of “absolute liability” and laid down guidelines for determining compensation. The court held that the polluter must pay compensation for the actual loss suffered by the affected people, which may include not only monetary losses but also non-monetary losses such as loss of livelihood, health and environment. The court also held that the polluter must pay compensation regardless of whether it took reasonable care to prevent the harm, and that the burden of proving that the harm was caused by the polluter lies with the person claiming compensation.
The MC Mehta v. Union of India case is significant for several reasons. First, it established the principle of “absolute liability” in cases of environmental pollution, which holds polluters strictly liable for any harm caused by their actions. This principle was later adopted by the courts in other environmental pollution cases, and has been instrumental in holding polluters accountable for the damage caused to the environment.
Secondly, it established that the state has a duty to protect the environment and that it can be held liable for negligence in this regard. The court ordered the closure of several polluting industries and directed the DDA to take steps to clean up the river and compensate affected residents, thus making the state responsible for protection of the environment.
Thirdly, it provided the principles of compensation, which stated that the polluter must pay compensation for the actual loss suffered by the affected people. This included not only monetary losses but also non-monetary losses such as loss of livelihood, health, and environment. This principle has been adopted in other cases as well, to ensure that the polluter bears the full cost of environmental damage caused by it.
In conclusion, MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987) is a landmark judgment that has had a profound impact on environmental law in India. It established the principle of “absolute liability” in cases of environmental pollution and established that the state has a duty to protect the environment. It also established principles of compensation for the harm caused to the environment and affected people, which has been adopted in other cases as well. The case has played a significant role in shaping the law of environmental pollution in India and has been instrumental in holding polluters accountable for the damage caused to the environment.