What is the measure of liability of an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, where by any chance an accident occurs, persons die or get injured? Answer with reference to the Oleum G

The 'Oleum Gas Leak case' came into limelight after it got originated in a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court by the environmentalist and lawyer M.C. Mehta, as a public interest litigation. The petition raised some seminal questions concerning the Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution, the principles and norms for determining the liability of large enterprises engaged in manufacture and sale of hazardous products, the basis on which damage in case of such liability should be quantified, and whether such large enterprises should be allowed to continue to function in thickly populated areas and if they are permitted so to function. The pressing issue which the Supreme Court had to decide immediately in the petition, was whether to allow the caustic chlorine plant of Shriram Foods & Fertiliser Industries to be restarted. On December 4, 1985 a major leakage of oleum gas took place from one of the units of Shriram, and this leakage affected a large number of people, both amongst the workmen and the public in general. This gas leak followed by another disaster i.e., within two days, another leakage took place as a result of escape of oleum gas from the joints of a pipe. The Delhi Administration issued two orders, on the behest of Public Health and Policy, to cease carrying on any further operation in the unit, and to remove such chemical and gases from there. The Inspector of Factories and the Assistant Commissioner (Factories) issued separate orders on December 7th and 24th, 1985 to shut down both the plants. Aggrieved, Shriram filed a writ petition challenging the two prohibitory orders issued under the Factories Act of 1948, and sought interim permission to reopen the caustic chlorine plant. The Supreme Court, after examining the reports of the various committees that were constituted from time to time to examine the areas of concern and potential problems relating to the plant, as well as the existence of safety and pollution control measures, etc., held that pending consideration of the issue whether the caustic chlorine plant should be directed to be shifted and relocated at some other place, arrived at the conclusion that the caustic chlorine plant should be allowed to be restarted by the management subject to certain specified stringent conditions. The Apex Court said 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. We can only hope to reduce the element of hazard or risk to the community by taking all necessary steps for locating such industries in a manner which would pose least risk or danger to the community by maximizing safety requirements.