9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Preliminary Objection on Compensation Claim 2. Scope and Ambit of Article 32 3. Applicability of Article 21 to Private Corporations 4. Measure of Liability for Hazardous Industries Summary 1. Preliminary Objection on Compensation Claim Mr. Diwan, representing Shriram, raised a preliminary objection that the Court should not decide constitutional issues related to compensation as no such claim was originally made in the writ petition. The Court rejected this objection, stating that applications for compensation by the Delhi Legal Aid & Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association are for enforcement of the fundamental right to life u/s Article 21 and should not be dismissed on hypertechnical grounds. 2. Scope and Ambit of Article 32 The Court reiterated that Article 32 not only empowers the Court to issue directions, orders, or writs for enforcement of fundamental rights but also imposes a constitutional obligation to protect these rights. The Court has the power to forge new remedies and strategies for enforcement, especially for the poor and disadvantaged who cannot approach the Court. The Court endorsed the broadening of locus standi and epistolary jurisdiction, allowing letters addressed to individual justices to be entertained if they represent the deprived or disadvantaged. 3. Applicability of Article 21 to Private Corporations The Court discussed whether Article 21 is applicable to Shriram, a private corporation engaged in an industry with potential to affect life and health. The Court examined the extensive control and regulation by the State over such industries and the sizable aid provided by the Government. The Court noted the evolving jurisprudence that corporations performing public functions or receiving significant state aid could be considered state actors. However, the Court refrained from making a definitive pronouncement on this issue, leaving it for detailed consideration if necessary in the future. 4. Measure of Liability for Hazardous Industries The Court deliberated on the liability of enterprises engaged in hazardous industries, rejecting the traditional rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. The Court evolved a new principle of "absolute liability," holding that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities owe an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure no harm results from their activities. Such enterprises must compensate for any harm caused, regardless of negligence, and the compensation should be proportional to the enterprise's capacity and magnitude to have a deterrent effect. Conclusion The Court directed the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board to file actions for compensation on behalf of victims of the oleum gas leak within two months, with necessary funds provided by the Delhi Administration. The High Court was instructed to expedite the disposal of such actions. The writ petition was disposed of, with the issue of relocation and other matters scheduled for hearing on 3rd February 1987.
|
