Module IV: Handling of Hazardous Substances-Legal Provisions

Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement)

Rules 2016
The Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016
were established under the provision of the Environment Protection Act.

Meaning of Hazardous Waste:

Section 3(17) of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement)
Rules, 2016 define what hazardous wastes are.
“Hazardous waste” means any waste which by reason of characteristics such as physical,
chemical, biological, reactive, toxic, flammable, explosive or corrosive, causes danger or is
likely to cause danger to health or environment, whether alone or in contact with other wastes
or substances.
In simple words, hazardous waste means any waste that is characteristically dangerous to health
or the environment.

 There are several types of hazardous wastes ranging from flammable to acutely poisonous
that have been defined under the law. It is thus important to understand how to identify such
wastes and how to deal with them, i.e., how to store and treat these substances.
 These wastes may be identified by analyzing their elements. Lab testing is also an option but
it may be quite expensive.

Why is Hazardous Waste Management Important?

Industrial waste generation and the generation of hazardous waste with it have been increasing
especially in states such as Gujarat and Maharashtra where industrial development is on the
rise. However, not much has been done to actually treat this waste despite the existence of
certain rules and regulations.
There is a clear absence of adequate infrastructure and staff. India produces approximately 7.46
million metric tonnes of hazardous waste with Gujarat as the leading contributor. There are
several states that do not have their own hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal
facilities. This is why it becomes important to set certain rules to manage the industry at hand.
Objective of the Rule:
 The Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016
encourage the reduction of hazardous waste generation and encourage its recycling and
reusing.
 They also specify strict guidelines related to the import and export or even storage and
transportation of hazardous wastes in order to ensure optimum waste management with
regard to transportation, storage and disposal of waste.
 For example, some specific hazardous wastes mentioned in the Rules are not permitted to be
imported. In case a particular import is deemed illegal, the importer is required to re-export
the waste in question at his own cost within 90 days of its arrival in Indi.
These rules, thus, aim to protect the environment at large as well as the persons who come into
contact with the hazardous waste and are at higher risk of being exposed to them.

Procedure for handling Hazardous Wastes

The Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016,
provide a comprehensive framework for the management, handling, and disposal of hazardous
wastes in India. The rules outline a detailed procedure for the handling of hazardous wastes to
ensure environmental protection and public health.

Below is an overview of the procedure for handling hazardous wastes under these rules:
1. Identification and Classification of Hazardous Wastes:
 The first step in handling hazardous wastes is the identification and classification of
wastes generated by various industries and processes.
 The rules provide criteria and lists of hazardous wastes based on their characteristics,
such as toxicity, flammability, corrosiveness, and reactivity.

2. Generation and Segregation:

 Industries generating hazardous wastes are required to segregate them from non-
hazardous wastes at the point of generation.
 The rules mandate proper labeling and packaging of hazardous wastes to prevent leaks,
spills, or accidents during storage and transportation.

3. Accumulation and Storage:

 Hazardous wastes must be accumulated and stored in designated areas within the
premises of the generating facility.
  Storage facilities must comply with specific requirements regarding containment,
labeling, signage, and spill control measures to prevent environmental contamination and
risks to human health.

4. Transportation:
 Hazardous wastes are required to be transported by authorized transporters using vehicles
specially designed and equipped for the safe transport of hazardous materials.
 Transporters must obtain appropriate permits and licenses, and the transportation process
must adhere to specified safety standards and protocols.

5. Treatment and Disposal:

 Hazardous wastes must undergo treatment to reduce their toxicity or render them less harmful
before disposal.
 Treatment facilities must comply with technical standards and environmental norms prescribed
under the rules.
 Disposal of hazardous wastes must be carried out in authorized hazardous waste disposal
facilities, such as secured landfills or incinerators, to prevent contamination of soil, water, and
air.

6. Record-keeping and Reporting:

 Generators, transporters, and treatment facilities are required to maintain records of
hazardous waste generation, handling, transportation, treatment, and disposal.
 Regular reporting to regulatory authorities, such as the State Pollution Control Boards
(SPCBs) or the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), is mandatory to ensure
compliance with the rules.

7. Monitoring and Enforcement:

 Regulatory authorities conduct inspections, audits, and monitoring of hazardous waste
management activities to verify compliance with the rules.
 Non-compliance may result in penalties, fines, or other enforcement actions as prescribed
under the rules.
Overall, the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, establish a
systematic and stringent procedure for the safe and environmentally sound handling of hazardous wastes
throughout their lifecycle, from generation to final disposal. This procedure aims to minimize risks to human
health and the environment while promoting sustainable waste management practices.
 Procedure for Re-cycling
Under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules,
2016, recycling of hazardous wastes is an important aspect aimed at minimizing the
environmental impact of such wastes and promoting resource conservation. The rules provide a
procedure for the recycling of hazardous wastes, ensuring that it is carried out in a safe and
environmentally sound manner.
Here's an overview of the procedure for recycling hazardous wastes under these rules:

1. Identification and Classification:

 Hazardous wastes suitable for recycling are identified and classified based on their
characteristics, such as toxicity, flammability, corrosiveness, and reactivity.
 Only wastes that can be safely recycled without causing harm to human health or the
environment are considered for recycling.

2. Authorization and Licensing:

 Recycling facilities or units intending to recycle hazardous wastes must obtain necessary
authorization and licenses from the regulatory authorities, such as the State Pollution
Control Boards (SPCBs) or the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).
 The authorization process involves submitting an application detailing the proposed
recycling activities, infrastructure, and environmental management measures.

3. Waste Acceptance and Handling:

 Recycling units must only accept hazardous wastes that are compatible with their
recycling processes and equipment.
 Upon receipt, hazardous wastes are inspected, segregated, and stored in designated areas
within the recycling facility, ensuring compliance with safety and environmental
standards.

4. Treatment and Processing:

 Hazardous wastes undergo treatment and processing to recover valuable materials or
resources, such as metals, chemicals, or energy.
 Recycling processes must be carried out using appropriate technologies and techniques to
minimize environmental pollution and ensure worker safety.

5. Quality Control and Monitoring:

 Quality control measures are implemented throughout the recycling process to ensure the
quality and purity of recycled materials.
 Regular monitoring and testing of recycled products are conducted to verify compliance
with specified standards and regulatory requirements.
6. Documentation and Reporting:
 Recycling units are required to maintain detailed records of hazardous waste recycling
activities, including quantities received, processed, and recycled.
 Periodic reporting to regulatory authorities is mandatory, providing information on
recycling operations, environmental performance, and compliance status.

7. Environmental Management and Compliance:

 Recycling units must implement environmental management practices, such as pollution
control measures, waste minimization, and environmental monitoring, to prevent
pollution and minimize environmental impacts.
 Compliance with the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary
Movement) Rules, 2016, and other relevant environmental regulations is essential to
ensure safe and sustainable hazardous waste recycling operations.
Overall, the procedure for recycling hazardous wastes under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and
Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, aims to promote resource recovery, reduce environmental pollution,
and ensure the safe and sustainable management of hazardous wastes through recycling activities. Compliance
with regulatory requirements and adoption of best practices are essential to achieve these objectives while
safeguarding human health and the environment.
[For more info related to Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016-
https://blog.ipleaders.in/hazardous-waste-management-rules-2016/#Treatment_Storage_and_Disposal_Facility_for_Hazardous_Wastes ]

Bio-Medical Waste (Management & Handling) Rules 1998

What is Biomedical Waste

Biomedical waste (hereinafter BMW) is defined under the rules as any waste produced during
the diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of human or animal research activities pertaining
thereto or in the production or testing of biological or in health camps.
In simple words, these wastes include animal anatomical waste, human waste, medical
apparatus like syringes, needles, and other materials used in hospitals and other laboratories
(research center, nursing homes, blood bank, pathological laboratories, etc) in the process of
research and treatment.

 Hospitals and various other laboratories engender a wide range and a significant quantity of
wastes (including biomedical or infectious waste) that has the ability to give rise to various
health problems and environmental hazards.
 Generally in India, 1-2 kg waste per bed per day in a hospital and 600 gm waste per day per
bed in a clinic is generated, out of which more than 15% is hazardous or infectious and this
hazardous waste is mixed with remaining waste which results into the contamination of the
entire waste.
 The sustainable management of these wastes is the social and legal responsibility of the
government as well as the public at large. So these wastes have to be properly collected,
transported, and disposed of in order to safeguard the environment, and to streamline these
activities various guidelines and rules were published by the Government of India in 1998
known as the Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998.

Biomedical wastes are divided into four color categories:

1) Yellow: In this category, eight types of waste are categorized- Human anatomical waste,
animal anatomical waste, soiled waste, expired or discarded waste, chemical waste, chemical
liquid waste (separate collection system leading to effluent treatment system), discarded
linen, mattresses, beddings contaminated with blood or body fluid, and microbiology,
biotechnology, and other clinical laboratory waste.

2) Red: It includes contaminated waste that is recyclable like waste generated from disposable
items such as tubing, bottles, intravenous tubes and sets, urine bags, syringes, and gloves.

3) White(Translucent): It includes waste sharps including metals (includes used, contaminated

and discarded metal sharps)

4) Blue: It includes broken or contaminated or discarded glass and metallic body implants.

Scope & Application

The scope of the Bio-Medical Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998, encompasses
various aspects related to the management, handling, and disposal of bio-medical waste
generated from healthcare facilities and activities.

Here's an overview of the scope of these rules:

Applicability to Healthcare Facilities:
According to Rule-2: These rules apply to all persons who generate, collect, receive, store,
transport, treat, dispose, or handle bio medical waste in any form.
 The rules apply to all persons or organizations generating, collecting, storing,
transporting, treating, and disposing of bio-medical waste.
  Healthcare facilities, including hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, dispensaries, veterinary
institutions, laboratories, blood banks, and research institutions, are covered under the
rules.
 Healthcare-related activities, such as diagnosis, treatment, research, or vaccination, that
generate bio-medical waste are subject to the rules.
 The rules also apply to any person or organization involved in the collection, transport,
treatment, and disposal of bio-medical waste, including waste handlers, waste
transporters, and waste treatment facilities.Inclusion of Healthcare Activities:
 The rules cover healthcare-related activities that generate bio-medical waste, such as
diagnosis, treatment, research, vaccination, surgery, and other medical procedures.
 Bio-medical waste generated from various healthcare departments, including pathology,
microbiology, radiology, operation theaters, dental clinics, and dialysis units, falls under
the scope of the rules.

Coverage of Bio-Medical Waste Categories:

 The rules encompass different categories of bio-medical waste based on their
characteristics and potential hazards.
 Bio-medical waste categories covered under the rules include infectious waste,
pathological waste, sharp waste, pharmaceutical waste, chemical waste, and radioactive
waste.

Responsibilities of Waste Generators:

 Healthcare facilities and other waste generators are responsible for segregating bio-
medical waste at the point of generation into appropriate categories as per the rules.
 They must provide adequate facilities and infrastructure for the collection, storage, and
disposal of bio-medical waste within their premises.

Regulatory Requirements:
 The rules prescribe specific standards, guidelines, and procedures for the segregation,
packaging, labeling, transportation, treatment, and disposal of bio-medical waste.
 Regulatory authorities, such as the State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and the
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), oversee the implementation and enforcement of
the rules and may issue guidelines or notifications to ensure compliance.

Training and Awareness Programs:

  The rules mandate training programs for healthcare personnel, waste handlers, and other
stakeholders involved in bio-medical waste management to ensure proper handling,
segregation, and disposal practices.
 Awareness campaigns and educational initiatives are encouraged to promote compliance
with the rules and raise awareness about the importance of bio-medical waste
management for public health and environmental protection.

Treatment and Disposal Facilities:

 The rules require the establishment of authorized bio-medical waste treatment and
disposal facilities, which must comply with prescribed standards and obtain necessary
authorizations from regulatory authorities.
 Final disposal of treated bio-medical waste must be carried out in accordance with the
rules, ensuring minimal environmental impact and public health risks.

Duty of Occupier

According to Rule- 4:
“It shall be the duty of every occupier of an institution generating biomedical waste which
includes a hospital, nursing home, clinic, dispensary, veterinary institution, animal house,
pathological laboratory, blood bank by whatever name called to take all steps to ensure that
such waste is handled without any adverse effect to human health and the environment.”

The Bio-Medical Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998, outline the duties and
responsibilities of the "occupier" of a healthcare facility concerning the management and
handling of bio-medical waste.
The term "occupier" refers to the person or entity in control of the premises where bio-medical
waste is generated.
Duties:
i. Segregation of Bio-Medical Waste:
The occupier is responsible for ensuring the proper segregation of bio-medical waste at the
point of generation. This involves categorizing bio-medical waste into different types, such as
infectious waste, pathological waste, sharps, chemical waste, and pharmaceutical waste, using
color-coded bags or containers.
ii. Provision of Infrastructure and Facilities:
The occupier must provide adequate infrastructure and facilities for the safe collection, storage,
and disposal of bio-medical waste within the premises of the healthcare facility.
This includes providing designated areas for bio-medical waste storage, installing appropriate
waste collection bins or containers, and ensuring the availability of personal protective
equipment for staff handling bio-medical waste.

iii. Training and Awareness:

The occupier is responsible for organizing training programs and awareness sessions for
healthcare personnel and other staff involved in bio-medical waste management.
Training should cover topics such as segregation practices, use of personal protective
equipment, safe handling procedures, and emergency response protocols.

iv. Record-keeping and Reporting:

The occupier must maintain records of bio-medical waste generation, collection, storage,
transportation, treatment, and disposal as per the prescribed format.
Records should include details such as the quantity and type of waste generated, dates of
collection and disposal, and records of training programs conducted.

v. Compliance with Standards and Guidelines:

The occupier is required to comply with the standards, guidelines, and protocols specified under
the Bio-Medical Waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 1998.
This includes following prescribed procedures for waste segregation, packaging, labeling,
transportation, treatment, and disposal, as well as adhering to safety and environmental norms.

vi. Cooperation with Regulatory Authorities:

The occupier must cooperate with regulatory authorities, such as the State Pollution Control
Boards (SPCBs) and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), during inspections, audits,
and compliance monitoring activities.
They should provide access to facilities, records, and information as required by the regulatory
authorities.

vii. Liability for Non-compliance:

The occupier is liable for any non-compliance with the provisions of the Bio-Medical Waste
(Management & Handling) Rules, 1998, and may face penalties, fines, or other enforcement
actions for violations.
It is the responsibility of the occupier to ensure that all aspects of bio-medical waste
management are carried out in accordance with the rules to protect public health and the
environment.

Industrial Accidents: Principle of ‘No Fault’ and ‘Absolute Liability’

What is ‘No-Fault Liability’?

Sometimes, a person is held liable for a fault, which he did not intend to do, or he was not
negligent on his part in causing the harm, or he, even, took reasonable care to avoid causing the
harm. In other words, sometimes in law, a person is held liable for no fault of his own, which is
termed as ‘No-Fault Liability’.
Such kind of liability exists in two forms: strict liability and absolute liability.

1. Strict Liability:
When a person is in possession of a dangerous thing, which escapes from the premises in any
manner and thereafter, causes harm, the said person is strictly liable for such damages, even if
he was not negligent in causing the harm. In such a case, it is the responsibility of the defendant
to prove that he is not liable for such damages.

The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher:

In Rylands v. Fletcher, the defendant built a reservoir on his land, through independent
contractors, to provide water to his mill. They failed to notice the old, idle shafts under the site,
leaving it as it was. When the reservoir was filled with water, it burst through the shafts.
Consequently, it flooded the adjoining coal mines, which belonged to the plaintiff. Here, the
defendant was neither aware of the shafts, nor was he negligent in his actions, even though the
contractors were. Yet, the defendant was held strictly liable. This case laid the foundation of the
concept of strict liability.
Essentials:
For the application of strict liability, the following three requisites must be fulfilled:
a) Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on his land: It is necessary that
the thing brought on the land is dangerous. A dangerous thing is defined as something which
poses an exceptionally high risk to the neighbouring property such as electricity, vibrations,
explosives etc.

b) It must be non-natural use of land: It is the unusual use of land which amounts to special
hazards, judged by the standards appropriate at the relevant place and time such as
constructing a water reservoir.

c) The thing thus brought or kept by the person must escape: It is essential that the thing
causing damage must escape in the area outside the occupation or control of the defendant
such as the escape of extremely dangerous wild dogs from an individual’s property in the
locality.

d) The damaged caused should be foreseeable to the defendant: Foreseeability of damage is

essential to claim damages in cases of strict liability such as accidents in a cracker factory in
very much foreseeable to the owner as well as workers of the factory.

Exceptions:
a) Act of God: Acts which are occasioned by the forced nature and cannot be controlled by the
agency of men such as earthquake, lightning, severe frost, storm etc. Comes under the
category of the act of god.

b) The wrongful act of the third party: The defendant cannot be held liable if the damaged
caused is due to an inevitable accident or wrongful act of a third party.

c) Plaintiff’s own fault: The defendant cannot be held liable in case damage caused to the
plaintiff is because of his own default. For example, if the plaintiff enters into defendant’s
garden without his permission and consumes some toxic fruits which caused damage to his
health.

d) Artificial work maintained for the common benefit of both plaintiff and defendant: The
defendant cannot be held responsible for damage caused by a source which was equally
beneficial to the plaintiff or either consented by the plaintiff such as sharing the same
building or a common water resource.
e) Acts of statutory authority: no one can be held liable for doing acts which the legislature has
authorised provided it is done without any negligence on their part such as a municipal
corporation.
Extra Info- Cases where Strict Liability has been cited:

Musgrove v. Pandelis

C. Balakrishnan Menon v. T.R. Subramanian

K. Shanrung Lamkang v. State of Manipur

P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar

2. Absolute Liability:
When an organization is involved in an “inherently” hazardous activity, and the operations of
such an organization result in any harm to anyone, the enterprise is “absolutely liable” to
compensate the aggrieved. Unlike strict liability, there are no exceptions to absolute liability. To
put it in another way, the defendant cannot get away with the liability by showing there was no
negligence on his part.
The rationale behind this rule is explained below:
 If an inherently dangerous activity is permitted in the organization, it is assumed that such
consent is contingent on the firm, taking into consideration, the cost of accidents, occurring
as a result of the functioning of the firm, as a considerable constituent of its ongoing costs.

 The enterprise has the resources to bring to light potential dangers and guard against them.

The Rule of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India:

In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the petitioner filed a public interest litigation under Article 32
of the Indian Constitution, on account of leakage of oleum gas from Shriram Foods and
Fertilizers, Delhi. Its consequences involved the demise of an advocate practising in Tis Hazari
Court and injuries afflicted to several others. If the rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher was
applied in such situations, then every such enterprise, engaged in hazardous activity in
populated areas, would plead defence under the exceptions in the rule of strict liability. Thus,
the Supreme Court evolved a new concept of ‘Absolute Liability’, following the dynamic needs
of society and held the enterprise absolutely liable for the harm. Absolute liability was not
subject to any of the exceptions under Rylands v. Fletcher. The Court also permitted the
organizations filing the PIL to claim compensation from the enterprise within two months.

Reasoning given by the court in this judgement:

The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was laid down in the late-nineteenth century, a time when the
economy and technology was not as advanced as it is at present. Owing to expansion in
scientific knowledge and technological advancement, every enterprise, nowadays, involves
hazardous activities, to some extent, for its growth. In that case, every enterprise will resort to
the defences or exceptions under Rylands v. Fletcher to avoid liability, thereby exploiting it.
Thus, the laws, which are meant to regulate society, cannot remain static. It has to change with
the changing needs of society. Hence, the need for absolute liability was necessary to adapt
itself to the industrialised society.

Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Case:

Bhopal gas tragedy was an outcome of leakage of methyl isocyanate as well as other poisonous
gases in Union Carbide India Ltd., which manufactures pesticides in Bhopal. It is a subsidiary
of Union Carbide Corporation, USA. The leakage ruined many lives, caused serious injuries,
caused neurological disorders, and even worse, impaired many people’s sense organs. Based on
the documents of Union Carbide, it was shown beyond doubt that they availed technology,
without adequate testing and proof, and reduced managed safety and maintenance perfunctorily
to avoid huge expenditure. It pleaded the defence of sabotage under the rule of Rylands v.
Fletcher, but it was denied. The Supreme Court followed the principle of absolute liability from
the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. To ensure the victims of the gas leak case are
adequately compensated, the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 was passed. It states that a
person, who is associated with the handling of a ‘hazardous’ or ‘dangerous’ substance, shall
provide “immediate relief” to the victims of an accident, which occurred as a result of such
dangerous operations of his enterprise. This act was built on the foundation of the ‘No-Fault
Liability’.

Extra info- Cases where Absolute Liability has been cited:

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors.

Jagdish v. Naresh Soni

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India

Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd.

Difference between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability:

I. Strict liability provides for exceptions or defences, hence it is not absolute, whereas,
absolute liability is devoid of exceptions.

II. Strict liability involves the unnatural use of land, posing an increased threat. Furthermore,
it requires the escape of a dangerous thing from the defendant’s land. Absolute liability,
on the other hand, requires the enterprise to be engaged in an activity, which by its very
nature is hazardous.

III. Strict liability does not account for harm occurring within the premises, since it requires
the dangerous thing to escape. Absolute liability accounts for harm occurring within as
well as outside the premises.

IV. The damages under strict liability are not as desirable as they are under absolute liability,
since under absolute liability, compensation is proportional to the size and profitability of
the enterprise.

 Note: In the case of “Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India”, Mishra C.J. expressed doubts
related to the rule for damages in case of MC Mehta v Union of India that the case was
obiter dicta and a departure from law applied in western countries.
However, this doubt was not accepted in the case of “Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v.
Union of India” where it was held that the rule so applied was not obiter dicta and suited to the
circumstances prevailing in the country.
Therefore, the principle of strict liability, later to be known as absolute liability, was established
as the principle of “No Liability”
 [For more info about Strict liability means ‘No fault liability’ whereas time has proven it to be ‘No liability’-
https://blog.ipleaders.in/no-fault-liability/ ]

Case Laws
MC. Mehta vs. UOI (1987) Bhopal Gas Tragedy
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy, one of the world's worst industrial disasters, occurred on the night of
December 2-3, 1984, in Bhopal, India. While there is no specific case titled "MC Mehta vs.
UOI (1987)" related to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, environmental activist Mr. M.C. Mehta has
been involved in several legal battles seeking justice for the victims and holding the responsible
parties accountable.
One of the significant legal actions taken by Mr. M.C. Mehta was the filing of Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India seeking compensation and rehabilitation for the
victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, as well as strict action against Union Carbide Corporation
(UCC), the owner of the pesticide plant where the disaster occurred.
In response to the PIL filed by Mr. M.C. Mehta, the Supreme Court of India issued a series of
orders and judgments over several years, addressing various aspects of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy,
including compensation, environmental remediation, and legal accountability.
Key aspects and legal proceedings related to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy include:
o Compensation and Rehabilitation: The Supreme Court directed Union Carbide Corporation
(UCC) to pay compensation to the victims and their families. However, the amount of
compensation and the adequacy of rehabilitation measures remained contentious issues.

o Absolute Liability: The legal battle also involved holding the officials of Union Carbide
Corporation (UCC) and its Indian subsidiary, Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL), liable
for the disaster. However, legal proceedings against the accused faced significant challenges,
including delays and jurisdictional issues.

o Environmental Cleanup: The Supreme Court also addressed the environmental impact of the
Bhopal Gas Tragedy, directing authorities to undertake environmental cleanup and
remediation efforts in the affected areas.

Oleum Gas leak Case and Re-location of Industries

The "Oleum Gas Leak Case" refers to the legal proceedings surrounding a serious industrial
accident involving the release of oleum gas (sulfuric acid) from the Shriram Food and Fertilizer
Industry in Delhi, India. The incident occurred on December 4, 1985, resulting in severe
injuries and casualties among workers and nearby residents.
The case gained significant attention due to its implications for industrial safety, environmental
protection, and the welfare of workers and communities affected by industrial accidents.
Environmental activist Mr. M.C. Mehta played a prominent role in bringing the case to the
attention of the judiciary and seeking redress for the victims.
The legal proceedings in the Oleum Gas Leak Case led to the establishment of important
principles and guidelines related to industrial safety and environmental protection, including:
o Absolute Liability: The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in the Oleum Gas Leak
Case, reaffirmed the principle of "Absolute Liability," which holds that industries engaged in
hazardous activities are strictly liable for any harm caused by their operations, irrespective of
any precautions taken. This principle imposes a non-delegable duty on industries to prevent
harm and provides for strict liability in case of accidents.

o Precautionary Principle: The court emphasized the importance of the precautionary

principle, which requires industries to take preventive measures to avoid potential harm,
even in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence. This principle underscores the need for
proactive risk management and environmental protection measures in industrial activities.

o Polluter Pays Principle: The Polluter Pays Principle, another key environmental principle,
was invoked in the Oleum Gas Leak Case. This principle holds that the polluting party
should bear the costs of pollution prevention, control, and remediation. In the context of the
case, the court emphasized the responsibility of industries to bear the costs of compensating
victims and mitigating the environmental impacts of their operations.

Relocation of Industries
Regarding the relocation of industries, while the Oleum Gas Leak Case primarily focused on
accountability and preventive measures in the existing industrial setup, the principles
established in the case have broader implications for industrial development and land-use
planning. The judgment highlighted the importance of siting industries away from densely
populated areas and environmentally sensitive zones to minimize risks to public health and the
environment.
In subsequent cases and policy initiatives, including those involving Mr. M.C. Mehta, efforts
have been made to address the issue of industrial relocation to safer locations and to promote
sustainable industrial development practices. These efforts often involve a combination of
regulatory measures, land-use planning strategies, and stakeholder engagement to balance
industrial growth with environmental and public health considerations.

Brick-kiln industries case:

https://desikaanoon.in/case-study-brick-kiln-industries-case/

Gamma chamber case:

Delhi has been protected from harmful radiation because of the filing of a case against radiation
from a Gamma Chamber, students, and teachers at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).
{More info regarding this case is not found.}