Explain the principle of absolute liability and departure from rule in the matter of Rylands v. Fletcher in dealing with companies handling hazardous chemicals.

Principle of Absolute Liability: The principle of absolute liability states that when an enterprise is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous industry and if any harm results on account of such activity then the enterprise is absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and that it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part. In such industries, the principle of safe design would be that one does not guard merely against the most predictable, routine type of accidents. Rather one tries to anticipate the worst that could happen, even if it is highly unlikely, and not only guard against it, but prepare to contain it and make sure that there is no way for that even to take place. Absolute liability for the escape of impounded waters was first established in England during the mid-nineteenth century in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 330. The rule was first stated by Blackburn, J. (Court of Exchequer). The passage of Blackburn's opinion established broad liability for land owners whose land development activities result in the unexpected release of a large volume of water. The liability under this rule is strict and it is no defense to say that the thing escaped without that person's willful act, default or neglect or even that he had no knowledge of its existence. Departure from rule: In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086, 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 defenses 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.