Through this case comment, I seek to bring out the essentiality and critique of the judicial pronouncement in the 1986 case of “MC Mehta Vs. Union of India” contextualizing the jurisprudential application Absolute liability under the framework set after the Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. tragedy which was about application of article 21[i] and 32[ii] of constitution alongside the environmental laws. I will direct focus towards the judicial rationale creating a theoretical foundation for subsequent discursive analysis and seek to clarify the essence of replacement of strict liability with absolute. Ultimately, I attempt to engage in a consequential analysis while clarifying the possible implications of the judgment in a setting of increasing environmental and public health consciousness while also taking into consideration some of the tenets of the constitution of India. Utilizing such analysis, this draft attempt to shed light upon a few inevitable inadequacies of the decision.
[i] INDIA CONST. art 21.
[ii] INDIA CONST. art 32.
