Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
In environmental cases, the Supreme Court has linked right to health under Article 21 with right to clean environment, applying which principle to hold industries strictly liable for pollution damage regardless of negligence?
- Strict liability
- Absolute liability
- Vicarious liability
- Contributory negligence
Answer: Absolute liability
Absolute liability in environmental jurisprudence: (a) MC Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak case, 1987): SC evolved 'absolute liability' principle for enterprises engaged in hazardous/inherently dangerous activities: (i) Liable for harm caused regardless of negligence, (ii) No defenses available (act of God, third party, etc.), (iii) Compensation based on magnitude of enterprise, harm caused, (b) Contrast with strict liability (Rylands v. Fletcher): Strict liability allows defenses; absolute liability does not — higher standard for hazardous industries, (c) Applications: (i) Industrial regulation: Closure of polluting units, emission standards, environmental impact assessments, (ii) Compensation: Bhopal gas tragedy settlements, ongoing litigation for victim compensation, (iii) Preventive measures: Precautionary principle requires preventing harm even without scientific certainty, (d) Constitutional basis: Article 21 (right to life includes healthy environment) + Article 48A (DPSP: State to protect environment) + Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty: protect environment), (e) Institutional mechanisms: (i) National Green Tribunal (NGT): Expedited environmental dispute resolution, (ii) Pollution Control Boards: Monitoring, enforcement of standards, (f) Illustrates transformative constitutionalism: Article 21 interpreted to impose positive obligations on State, industries for environmental protection; absolute liability ensures accountability for hazardous activities.