The National Green Tribunal (NGT) recently held LG Polymers prima facie liable for the Vizag gas leak under the strict liability principle. Legal experts, however, suggest that the absolute liability principle serves as the more appropriate measure.
Key Developments and Controversy
The NGT directed LG Polymers to deposit an initial sum of ₹50 crore and established a fact-finding committee. However, the use of the term “strict liability” has sparked a debate among lawyers. This legal principle, deemed obsolete by the Supreme Court in 1987, absolves a company from liability if a harmful substance unintentionally escapes its premises, such as during an accident or an ‘act of God’ event.
On the contrary, the National Green Tribunal Act of 2010 promotes the use of the absolute liability principle. The law insists that hazardous industries provide compensation irrespective of whether negligence contributed to the disaster.
Underlying Principles: Strict and Absolute Liability
Strict liability allows a company to evade responsibility under specific circumstances, such as accidents or ‘act of God’ events. In contrast, the absolute liability principle removes the potential for escaping blame. According to this rule, a firm operating in a hazardous industry must always pay compensation, regardless of the disaster’s cause.
Historical Context: Emergence of Absolute Liability
The shift from strict to absolute liability took place in 1987 during the M.C. Mehta vs Union of India case, where the Supreme Court found the strict liability principle insufficient in safeguarding citizens’ rights. The ruling followed the Delhi Oleum gas leak of 1986, originating from a Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. complex, which led to significant damages.
The court criticised the strict liability principle, initially developed in the 1868 English case Rylands versus Fletcher, for providing companies with numerous liability exemptions. In contrast, absolute liability offers no such defensive loopholes and aligns with Article 21 of the Indian constitution guaranteeing the right to life. The ruling mandated corporations accept full liability for future harm to innocent citizens, regardless of fault.
This monumental change took place amidst the still palpable aftermath of the Bhopal gas tragedy of 1984. Union Carbide, a pesticide plant, allowed the lethal Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) to escape into the city, causing enormous loss of life and health complications in the Madhya Pradesh capital.
While these historical cases highlight the importance and relevance of absolute liability, the recent NGT verdict on LG Polymers has stirred controversy by reverting to the comparatively lenient strict liability principle.
