M.C. Mehta v. Union of India:

                        In this case Supreme Court was dealing with claims arising from the leakage of oleum gas on 4^th and 6^th December, 1985 from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, in the city of Delhi, belonging to Delhi Cloth Mils Ltd.  As a consequence of this leakage, it was alleged that one advocate practicing in the Tis Hazari Court had died and several others were affected by the same.  The action was brought through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by way of public interest litigation.  The Court had in mind that within a period of one year, this was a second case of large scale leakage of deadly gas in India, as a year earlier due to leakage of MIC gas from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal more than 3,000 persons has died and lacs of others were subjected to serious diseases of various kinds.  If the rule of Strict Liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletvher was applied to such like situations, then those who had established 'hazardous and inherently dangerous' industries in and around thickly populated areas could escape the liability for the havoc caused thereby by pleading some exception to the rule in Rylands V. Fletcher.  For instance, when the escape of the substance causing damage was due to the act of a stranger, say due to sabotage, there was no liability under that rule.

The Supreme Court took a bold decision holding that it was not bound to follow the 19^th century rule of English law, and it could evolve a rule suitable to the social and economic conditions prevailing in India at the present day.  It evolved the rule of 'Absolute Liability' as part of Indian Law in preference to the rule of Strict Liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher It expressly declared that the new rule was not subject to any of the exception under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.