Critically examine the applicability of liability rule in the tort applied in cases of enterprises engaged in a hazardous industry in India.

The Supreme Court has discussed the applicability of the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher [UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3HL 330] in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others (1987) 1. Comp. L.J. p. 99 S.C. while determining the principles on which the liability of an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry depended if an accident occurred in such industry. "We have to evolve new principle and lay down new norms which would adequately deal with the new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy. We cannot allow our judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to the law as it prevails in England or for the matter of that, in any other foreign country". On the question of the nature of liability for a hazardous enterprise the court while noting that the above rule as developed in England recognizes certain limitations and responsibilities recorded it's final view as follows: "We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas, owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged, must be conducted with the highest standards of safety; and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm; and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without negligence on its part." Thus, while imposing absolute liability for manufacture of hazardous substances, the Supreme Court intended that the requirement of non-natural use or the aspect of escape of a dangerous substance, commonly regarded as essential for liability under Rylands v. Fletcher, need not be proved in India.