"An enterprise which is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and an industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and of those residing in the sur

Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta and Another v. Union of India and others [(1987) 1 Comp. LJ 99 (SC)] ruled that an application for compensation in a pollution case can be maintained under Article 32 of the Constitution, for, such application is for the protection of the fundamental rights of the people and the Court has all incidental and ancillary powers including the power to forge new remedies and fashion new strategies designed to enforce fundamental rights. On the question of liability of an enterprise engaged in hazardous activities, the Supreme Court laid down for the first time a far-reaching ruling, that an enterprise which is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and an industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and of those residing in the surrounding area owes an absolute and non-delegatable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to any one on account of an hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The Court further reiterated that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher [(1861-73) All.E.R. 146 HL] of strict liability would apply in India but without any exceptions whatsoever recognised in England. The Court also ruled that the measure of compensation must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have a deterrent effect.