Strict Liability Offences Under Bns
What is Strict Liability?
Strict Liability is a legal principle where a party is held liable for damages or offenses without the need to prove mens rea (intent or knowledge of wrongdoing). This means that even if the accused did not intend to cause harm or was negligent, liability can still be imposed.
Strict liability is particularly important in cases involving hazardous activities or public safety, where the law aims to protect society from risks that cannot be entirely eliminated even with utmost care.
Strict Liability in the Context of BNSS
In the BNSS context—like industrial disasters (e.g., Bhopal Gas Tragedy)—the courts have emphasized strict liability to hold companies accountable for damages caused by hazardous substances, even if they took reasonable care. The reasoning is that companies engaged in hazardous activities have a special responsibility to ensure public safety.
Detailed Case Law on Strict Liability Offences
1. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1986)
Facts: Oleum gas leak from Shriram Food and Fertilizer Industries caused harm to the public.
Issue: Whether the company could avoid liability by proving it took all possible precautions.
Judgment: The Supreme Court rejected the defense of lack of negligence and held the company strictly liable.
Principle Established: Absolute Liability — an enhanced form of strict liability for hazardous industries, where no exceptions or defenses (such as acts of God, third-party acts) are allowed.
Importance: This case extended strict liability into absolute liability for hazardous activities, making corporations fully responsible for any harm caused.
2. Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) – English Law Foundation
Facts: The defendant constructed a reservoir, and water escaped causing damage to the plaintiff’s mines.
Principle: Established the principle of strict liability where a person who brings something dangerous onto their land is responsible for any damage caused by it escaping.
Relevance to BNSS: This principle forms the basis for strict liability in environmental and industrial safety cases in India.
Limitations: Unlike absolute liability, this rule has exceptions (e.g., act of God, consent of the plaintiff).
3. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)
Facts: Hazardous waste dumping by a multinational company caused severe pollution.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held the polluting company strictly liable for damages and cleanup costs.
Principle: The court reinforced the polluter pays principle and strict liability for environmental harm.
Importance: Companies cannot evade liability by claiming lack of negligence or unforeseen consequences.
4. Bhopal Gas Tragedy Litigation – Union Carbide Corporation
Facts: Gas leak caused massive death and injury.
Application of Strict Liability: The courts and the government adopted the principle of strict liability to ensure compensation for victims, emphasizing that hazardous industries are strictly liable for harm caused.
Outcome: The company was held liable even though it claimed due care.
Significance: Set a precedent for dealing with industrial disasters in India under strict liability.
5. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)
Facts: Environmental degradation caused by mining activities affecting groundwater.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held the state and corporations strictly liable for preventing environmental harm.
Principle: Affirmed that environmental protection is a constitutional obligation, and strict liability applies to prevent irreversible harm.
Importance: Broadened strict liability to environmental governance, ensuring proactive measures.
Summary of Strict Liability Principles Under BNSS
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Definition | Liability without fault or negligence. |
| Applicability | Hazardous industries, environmental pollution, public safety. |
| Absolute Liability | Enhanced strict liability with no exceptions (M.C. Mehta case). |
| Polluter Pays Principle | Polluters bear cost of damage regardless of negligence. |
| No Defense Allowed | Acts of God, third-party acts, or due diligence defenses rejected in absolute liability. |
| Objective | Protect public and environment from risks of hazardous activities. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments