Explain the rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher case. How far it is applicable in Indian scenario?

Rule laid in Rylands v. Fletcher case Rylands v. Fletcher was a decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. The "Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher" states that "the person who for his own purposes brings 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 he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape". Applicability in Indian Scenario The question 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 and the applicability of Rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher was debated in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, commonly called oleum gas leak case. The Supreme Court sought to make a departure from the accepted legal position in Rylands v. Fletcher stating that "an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity that poses a potential threat to the health and safety of persons and owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to 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.