Case Analysis (FILAC)

1. Constitutional law and Tort law analysis

M.C.Mehta v. Union of India

Facts of the case:

On December 4th, 1985, a significant oleum gas leak from one of Shriram Food and
Fertiliser Industries, which was a subsidiary of Delhi Cloth Mills Limited (formerly Delhi
Textile Mills) in Delhi occurred. Both the workers and members of the general public
outside were physically impacted by the leaking. In addition, one attorney working in the
Tis Hazari Court passed away from oleum gas inhalation. Both Shriram industries and
the Delhi Bar Association acknowledged the occurrence. Two days later, on December
6, a little amount of oleum gas leaked from a pipe junction. The incident raised concerns
about the safety and environmental standards of the factory and its potential impact on
the surrounding community. MC Mehta, a public interest attorney, filed a writ petition
under Articles 21 and 32 of the Indian Constitution in the Supreme Court, seeking the
closure and relocation of the hazardous plant. While the petition was being considered,
an incident occurred where oleum gas escaped from one of Shriram’s units. In response
to this incident, the Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association
filed applications seeking compensation for the individuals who had suffered harm due
to the escape of oleum gas.

Issues:
● What is the scope of Article 32 of the Constitution for granting remedies?
● Whether the principle of strict liability should be followed?
● How to calculate liability and compensation amounts.
● Whether such harmful substances can be allowed to be kept in the premises?
● Whether Article 21 (Right to Life) applies to Shriram, owned by Delhi Cloth
Mills Limited, a public company limited by shares, the company is engaged in
an industry vital to the public interest. It has the potential to impact the life and
health of people.

Law:
● Article 21,Protection of Life and Personal Liberty- Article 21 states that “No
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a
 procedure established by law.” Thus, article 21 secures two rights: 1) Right to
life, and 2) Right to personal liberty.
● Article 32, Right to a Remedy-
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
⁠(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by this Part.
● Article 12, it defines the term 'State' for the Fundamental Rights Constitution.
● Rylands v. Fletcher- landmark case in English tort law which established strict
liability

Analysis:
J. Bhagwati expressed grave worries for the safety of Delhi residents from hazardous
chemical leaks and claimed that eliminating toxic and dangerous factories was not an
option because they continue to improve people's quality of life. Therefore, even
destructive industries must be formed since they are essential to the growth of the
economy and society.

He thought that the only way to lessen the risk or harm to the general public was to take
all appropriate measures to put these industries in areas where the general population
would be least exposed and the needs for security would be addressed.

The court ruled that the hazardous industries are exempt from all exceptions to the
norm outlined in Rylands v. Fletcher. Total accountability was approved by the Court.
The leakage was produced by mechanical and human faults, excluding the possibilities
of a 3rd party's action or a natural disaster, according to the court, which determined
that the concept of absolute liability is relevant in this case.
The act of a third party or a natural calamity was the only exception that applied in this
situation. An industry is required to make sure that no one is harmed when engaging in
risky operations that could endanger the health and safety of adjacent workers and
residents.

The court made the point that new strategies and techniques for upholding basic rights
may be established under Article 32 and the Supreme Court in addition to providing
direction. As seen As demonstrated by the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of
India, the authority underlying Article 32 in the context of a challenge to fundamental
rights is not just confined to preventive actions but also applies to remedial efforts where
rights are already being violated.
An analysis of the claims made in the Policy Resolutions and the Act shows that the
production of chemical products and fertilisers is thought to be a vitally important part of
the public sector. Public trade-related activities must ultimately be carried out by the
State, but in the interim, they may be supported by and governed by the State, as well
as by private businesses. The court stressed the necessity to address this issue in the
future even though it ultimately did not decide whether a private corporation was
covered by Article 12 of the Indian Constitution.

Conclusion:
In order to provide justice for the victims and prevent impeding the nation's economic
growth, the decision had to be taken in a certain way. This tragedy became a guiding
force for the development of such an effective statute just a few short months before the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 went into effect.
The Delhi Legal Aid and Advice Board is instructed to handle the cases of all individuals
who claim to have suffered due to the oleum gas leak. The Board should file actions on
their behalf in the appropriate Court to claim compensation. The Delhi Administration is
also directed to provide the necessary funds to the Board for this purpose.
● Article 32 not only empowers the Court to issue directions, orders, or writs for the
enforcement of fundamental rights, but it also imposes a constitutional obligation
on the Court to protect the fundamental rights of the people. To fulfil this
obligation, the Court has the authority to develop new remedies and strategies to
enforce fundamental rights, especially for the poor and disadvantaged, who are
often denied their basic human rights.
● The power of the Court is not limited to preventing the infringement of
fundamental rights but also includes providing remedial relief against a breach of
fundamental rights that has already occurred.
● The Court can award compensation in appropriate cases as part of remedial
relief.
● Ordinarily, a petition under Article 32 should not be used as a substitute for
claiming compensation through the regular process of Civil Courts.
Compensation may be awarded in exceptional cases under Article 32.
● The applications for compensation in the present writ petition seek enforcement
of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. In dealing with
such applications, the Court must avoid a hyper-technical approach defeating
justice’s ends. The substance of the claim should be considered, not just the
form.
● The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 was introduced with the main
purpose of providing immediate relief to people who are victims of the
accident in which handling of hazardous substances is involved.
All industries were forced to implement stricter safety regulations as a result of the
lawsuit. In spite of its denials, Shriram's gas leak case was significant because it was
the first time a company had been held solely responsible for an incident and forced to
make amends.
The Supreme Court has taken on a particular judicial function because the justifications
for the decision have been established on both a scientific and a legal basis. The choice
was made taking into account the significance of industrialization as well as the
possibility that accidents may develop as a result of it.

The choice was made while also taking into account the necessity for industrialization,
as well as the likelihood and consequences of injuries. The Supreme Court became a
champion of the environment and public rights as a result of its generally sound
judgment, which took into account all relevant social, economic, and legal factors.

2. Criminal law and Constitutional law analysis

1. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v Union Of India, 2011

Facts
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug was a staff nurse employed in King Edward Memorial
Hospital, located in Mumbai. One of the sweepers of the hospital attacked her on 27th
November 1973. He choked and strangulated her via a dog chain in order to restrain
any movement from her end in an attempt to rape her. Upon realizing that Ms. Aruna
was menstruating he sodomized her. The very next day, on 28th November 1973 Ms.
Aruna was found lying on the floor with blood everywhere and all over her. One of the
cleaners found her in an unconscious condition. The strangulation via the dog chain
ceased the supply of oxygen to her brain causing severe damage to the cortex of the
brain. She sustained brain stem contusion too along with cervical cord injury. A petition
for the case was filed under article 32 of the Indian Constitution by a friend of Ms. Aruna
in the year 2009, after as many as 36 years of the incident. For so many years Ms.
Shanbaug has been in a "Permanent Vegetative State". She has become extremely
feeble and infirm.

Issues
● Whether Article 21[6] of the Indian Constitution include the Right to die
embedded within the Right to Life?
 ● What is the difference between passive and active euthanasia?
● Whether a person incapable to provide consent, be bestowed non-voluntary
passive euthanasia?
● Whether suicide should be considered as a crime under Section 309[7] of IPC?

Law
Article 21- right to life
Section 302 Of IPC covers punishment for a person who commits murder with death or
imprisonment for life.
Section 304 Of IPC whoever commits death by a negligent act shall be punished with
imprisonment or fine or both.
Section 309 of IPC holds anyone liable who attempts to commit suicide shall be
punished with imprisonment extending up to 1 year.

Analysis
5
In the previous case of Gian Kaur's case , the honourable Supreme Court rejected the
recognition of the right to die within the right to life under article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. This case forms the historical judgement of the legalization of passive
euthanasia in India which would end the distress and affliction of patients undergoing
unbearable and prolonged suffering. With the advent of modern technology, we have
failed to recognize that it's not the technology that governs and sustains humans but
rather vice-versa. Every single citizen is entitled to and reserves the right to die with
dignity.
Petitioners argument- A petition was filed by Ms. Shanbaug's friend under article 32 of
the Indian Constitution. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the right to life
guaranteed under article 21 includes the right to life with utmost dignity. It must
therefore also include the right to die with dignity. Any individual suffering from any
terminal illness or is in a permanent vegetative state must be included under the ambit
of the "right to die" in order to end the prolonged suffering and agony. She lacks any
awareness of her surroundings, is even devoid of the ability to chew her food, can't
express anything on her own, and is just bedridden for the past 36 years with no scope
of improvement. The patient is virtually dead and the respondents by not feeding Ms.
Shanbaug won't be killing her.

Conclusion
The court drew the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Active
euthanasia can be seen as the positive and deliberate termination of one's life by
injecting and administering lethal substances. It is considered to be a crime worldwide
except permitted by legislation. In India, active euthanasia is a straight infringement of
 2 3
section 302 and section 304 of the IPC. Moreover, physician-assisted suicide is an
4
offense under section 309 of IPC. Passive euthanasia on the other hand is the
withdrawal of life-supporting systems or medical treatment. The main distinction
between active and passive euthanasia is that in "active" something is done deliberately
to end life whereas in "passive" something is not done. A proper procedure and
guidelines were enlisted by the apex court for granting passive euthanasia in the "rarest
of rare circumstances" while rejecting the plea made by the petitioner. The High Court
under article 226 would be entitled to make decisions regarding the withdrawal of the
life support system. A bench must be constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court
when an application is received, before which a committee of three reputed doctors
nominated must be referred. There should be a thorough examination of the patient and
state and family members are provided with a notice issued by the bench. The High
Court must give a speedy decision.

2. Navtej Singh Johar v Union Of India

Facts
The issue in the case originated in 2009 when the Delhi High Court, in the case of Naz
Foundation v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, held Section 377 to be unconstitutional, in so far
as it pertained to consensual sexual conduct between two adults of the same sex. In
2014, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of Suresh Kumar Koushal v.
Naz Foundation, overturned the Delhi HC decision and granted Section 377 “the stamp
of approval” [p. 11, para. 9]. When the petition in the present case was filed in 2016
challenging the 2014 decision, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court opined that a
larger bench must answer the issues raised. As a result, a five-judge bench heard the
matter.
The Petitioner in the present case, Navtej Singh Johar, a dancer who identified as part
of the LGBT community, filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court in 2016 seeking
recognition of the right to sexuality, right to sexual autonomy and right to choice of a
sexual partner to be part of the right to life guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution of
India (Constitution). Furthermore, he sought a declaration that Section 377 was
unconstitutional.

Issue
The central issue of the case was the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (Section 377) insofar as it applied to the consensual sexual conduct
of adults of the same sex in private.
Law
Section 377 of IPC “[w]hoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of
nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to [a] fine.”
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution- right to life and personal liberty
Article 19 (1)- right to privacy
Article 15- right against discrimination

Analysis
The Court relied upon its decision in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of
India (( National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438 )) to
reiterate that gender identity is intrinsic to one’s personality and denying the same
would be violative of one’s dignity [p. 156, para. 253(i)]. The Court relied upon its
decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (( K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India,
(2017) 10 SCC 1 )) and held that denying the LGBT community its right to privacy on
the ground that they form a minority of the population would be violative of their
fundamental rights. It held that Section 377 amounts to an unreasonable restriction on
the right to freedom to expression since consensual carnal intercourse in private “does
not in any way harm public decency or morality” [p. 165, para. 253(xvi)] and if it
continues to be on the statute books, it would cause a chilling effect that would “violate
the privacy right under Art. 19(1)(a)” [p. 224, para. 83]. The Court affirmed that that
“intimacy between consenting adults of the same sex is beyond the legitimate interests
of the state” [p. 142] and sodomy laws violate the right to equality under Art. 14 and Art.
15 of the Constitution by targeting a segment of the population for their sexual
orientation. Further, the Court also relied upon its decisions in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan
K.M. ((Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., 2018 (5) SCALE 422 )) and Shakti Vahini v. Union
of India ((Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192 )) to reaffirm that an adult’s
right to “choose a life partner of his/her choice” [p. 72, para. 107] is a facet of individual
liberty.
Chief Justice Misra (on behalf of himself and J. Khanwilkar) relied on the principles of
transformative constitutionalism and progressive realization of rights to hold that the
constitution must guide the society’s transformation from an archaic to a pragmatic
society where fundamental rights are fiercely guarded. He further stated, “constitutional
morality would prevail over social morality” [p. 79, para. 121] to ensure that human
rights of LGBT individuals are protected, regardless of whether such rights have the
approval of a majoritarian government.
J Chandrachud stated that not only must the law not discriminate against same-sex
relationships, it must take positive steps to achieve equal protection and to grant the
community “equal citizenship in all its manifestations”
J. Malhotra affirmed that homosexuality is “not an aberration but a variation of sexuality”
[p. 455]. She stated that the right to privacy does not only include the right to be left
alone but also extends to “spatial and decisional privacy”
Justice Nariman, Justice Malhotra, Justice Chandrachud, Justice Kanwilkar and CJ
Misra

Conclusion
The five-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court (Court) unanimously held that
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 377), insofar as it applied to
consensual sexual conduct between adults in private, was unconstitutional. With this,
the Court overruled its decision in Suresh Koushal v. Naz Foundation (( Suresh Koushal
v. Naz Foundation, (2014) that had upheld the constitutionality of Section 377.