Top of Form
MANU/SC/0092/1986Equivalent Citation: I(1987)ACC157, 1987ACJ386, AIR1987SC1086, (1987)1CompLJ99(SC), JT1987(1)SC1, 1986(2)SCALE1188, (1987)1SCC395, 1986Supp(1)SCC562, 1SCR819IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAWrit Petition (Civil) No. 12739 of 1985Decided On: 20.12.1986Appellants: M.C. Mehta and another Vs.
Respondent: Union of India and othersHon'ble Judges:
G. L. Oza, K. N. Singh, M. M. Dutt, P. N. Bhagwati and Ranganath Misra, JJ.Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Party-in-PersoFor Respondents/Defendant: B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, A.B. Diwan, F.S. Nariman, B.R.L. Iyengar and Hardev Singh, Adv.Subject: ConstitutionCatch WordsMentioned INActs/Rules/Orders: Constitution of India - Article 12, Constitution of India - Article 15(2), Constitution of India - Article 17, Constitution of India - Article 21, Constitution of India - Article 23, Constitution of India - Article 24, Constitution of India - Article 32, Constitution of India - Article 32(1), Constitution of India - Article 32(2),Constitution of India - Article 226Cases Referred: Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0051/1983; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India MANU/SC/0080/1981; Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar,MANU/SC/0380/1983; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, MANU/SC/0498/1980; Eurasian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B., MANU/SC/0061/1974; Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Company, 42 L Ed (2d) 477; Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330, 19 LT 220, (1861) All ER Rep 1; PUDR v. Union of India,MANU/SC/0038/1982; Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, MANU/SC/0064/1985; Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, MANU/SC/0360/1967; Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, MANU/SC/0667/1975; R.D. Shetty v. International Airports Authority, MANU/SC/0048/1979; Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, ; Rashbihari Panda v. State of Orissa, MANU/SC/0054/1969; Kasturi Lal Reddy v. State of J & K. MANU/SC/0079/1980; Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, MANU/SC/0688/1981; General Electric Company v. Martha V. Gilbert, 50 L Ed (2d) 343Citing Reference:
Discussed 10Mentioned 7Case Note:
Constitution - Maintainability - Applications were filed by Delhi Legal Aid & Advice Board and Delhi Bar Association for award of compensation to persons who had suffered harm on account of escape of oleum gas from plants of Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries - However, as issues raised involved substantial questions of law relating to interpretation of Articles 21 and 32 of Constitution, case was referred to larger Bench of five Judges - Hence, this Appeal - Whether, under Article 32 Applications for compensation sought could be maintained - Held, under Article 32(1), Court was free to devise any procedure appropriate for particular purpose of proceeding - However, power of Court was not only injunctive in ambit, that is, preventing infringement of fundamental right, but was also remedial in scope and provided relief against breach of fundamental right already committed - Thus, Court had power to grant such remedial relief and could include power to award compensation in appropriate cases - Hence, it was unjust to person whose fundamental right was violated, to require him to go to Civil Court for claiming compensation - Appeal disposed of.Ratio Decidendi: "Courts shall order authorities for enforcement of fundamental rights of citizens and to protect fundamental rights of people."JUDGMENTP.N. Bhagwati, CJ.1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has come before us on a reference made by a Bench of three Judges. The reference was made because certain questions of seminal importance and high constitutional significance were raised in the course of arguments when the writ petition was originally heard. The facts giving rise to the writ petition and the subsequent events have been set out in some detail in the Judgment given by the Bench of three Judges on 17th February...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document