Discuss the rule in Rylands Vs. Fletcher and applicability of Rylands Doctrine in India. Why is the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act, 2007 a landmark law?

The principle of strict liability was first laid down in the landmark case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher. At times a person may be held responsible for doing a wrong even though there had been no negligence on his part or no intention to do such wrong or even if he had taken necessary steps to prevent such a wrong from happening. This is known as the principle of strict liability and is based on a no fault theory. In this case Rylands built a reservoir by employing a contractor. Later on the reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine run by Fletcher. Fletcher sued Ryland. The Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords held that the claimant (Fletcher) had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water and that Rylands was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. The "Rule in Rylands v Fletcher" is that "the person who for his own purposes bring on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if it does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape". The liability under this rule is strict and it is no defence to say that the thing escaped without that person's wilful act, default or neglect or even with the excuse that he had no previous knowledge of its existence. This rule applies only to non-natural user of the land and it does not apply to things naturally established on the land or where the thing escaped due to an act of God or an act of stranger or the default of the person injured or where the thing which escapes is present by the consent of the person injured or in certain cases where there is statutory authority. Exceptions: Escape of the hazardous goods was because of plaintiffs own consent Act of God Act of a stranger Act done by any statutory authority Default of the plaintiff Applicability of Rule in Rylands Case in India: In Shriram Foods & Fertilisers Industries v. Union Of India , the Supreme Court held that it is not possible to adopt a policy of not having any chemical or other hazardous industries merely because they pose hazard or risk to the community. If such a policy was adopted, it would mean the end of all progress and development. Such industries, even if hazardous, have to be set up since they are essential for the economic development and advancement of well-being of the people. Subsequently, the Supreme Court revisited the issue in M.C Mehta v. Union of India , the Apex Court sought to make a departure from the accepted legal position in Rylands v. Fletcher stating that an enterprise which is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity which poses a potential threat to the wealth and safety of the persons and owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results into anyone. The principle of absolute liability is operative without any exceptions. It does not admit of the defences of reasonable and due care, unlike strict liability. Thus, when an enterprise is engaged in hazardous activity and harm result, it is absolutely liable, effectively tightening up the law. Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, United Kingdom: The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is a landmark in law. For the first time, companies and organisations could be found guilty of corporate manslaughter as a result of serious management failures resulting in a gross breach of the duty of care. It clarifies the criminal liabilities of companies, including large organisations, where serious failures on the part of the management regarding caring about their men's health and safety measures that led to fatal consequences. Prosecutions will be, of the corporate body, and not of the individuals, but the liability of directors, board members or other individuals under health and safety law or general criminal law, will remain unaffected. Nevertheless, the corporate body and individuals can still be prosecuted separately for committing health and safety offences. Companies and organisations have to keep their health and safety management systems under constant review, particularly the way in which their activities are managed and organised by their senior management.