Absolute Liability: The Rule of Strict Liability in Indian Perspective | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Absolute Liability

• Absolute liability is a legal concept originating from British law, akin to strict liability but with significant distinctions.
• Unlike strict liability, absolute liability offers no exemptions to the defendant, requiring them to be accountable for any harm caused without defenses like plaintiff's fault, act of god, third-party actions, or consent.
• In India, the principle of absolute liability was introduced through landmark cases such as MC Mehta v UOI and the Bhopal gas leakage case.

Evolution of Absolute Liability in India

• The Indian judiciary, notably the Supreme Court, refined the principles of absolute liability to align with local conditions, drawing from the case of Rylands v Fletcher.
• The modern interpretation of the rule aimed to address the shortcomings of strict liability, which had become riddled with exceptions, diluting the concept of holding individuals strictly responsible for negligence.

Reformulation of the Rule of Rylands v Fletcher

• The original rule of strict liability faced numerous exceptions, rendering it less effective in holding individuals accountable for their actions due to various escape clauses.
• To rectify this, a stricter version of the rule was deemed necessary, emphasizing greater liability for individuals involved in hazardous activities.

Indian Judiciary's Perspective on Strict Liability

• The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has recognized the necessity to update the 19th-century doctrine of Strict Liability.
• In the M.C. Mehta case, the Supreme Court highlighted that the principle of strict liability, originating from Rylands v Fletcher, is outdated for the modern era.
• Justice Bhagwati emphasized that the rule of strict liability was established during a time when industrial progress was in its infancy, making it inadequate for today's advanced industrial society.
• The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of K. Nagireddi v. Union of India, stressed the importance of adapting the old principle to suit Indian circumstances.

Misconception of 'Absolute Liability'

• The term 'Absolute Liability' used in the context of strict liability cases is considered a misnomer.
• Despite being referred to as 'absolute' by Blackburn, the liability under Rylands v Fletcher is more accurately characterized as strict.
• Various exceptions have diminished the scope of the rule, aligning it closely with the modern principle that liability should not exist without fault.
• Therefore, 'Strict Liability' is a more appropriate term than 'Absolute Liability' for describing this legal concept. 

Why the Old Rule was Inappropriate in the Indian Perspective

• High Industrialisation Growth: The Indian economy is in a phase of rapid development, making the traditional rule of strict liability outdated. This rule originated during a time of low industrial progress, which makes it unsuitable for a rapidly growing economy like India.
• Use of Land for Agriculture: In India, a significant portion of land is utilized for agricultural purposes. Therefore, storing water in large tanks for irrigation purposes is crucial. This differs from countries like England, where the rule was established, and hence, it does not align with the Indian context.
• Obsolete Rule in the Modern World: The old rule dates back to the 19th century, over 150 years ago, when economic and social conditions were vastly different. It is essential to adapt rules to current requirements and realities.

Difference Between Absolute Liability and Strict Liability

The distinction between strict and absolute liability was established by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. The court delineated several key differences between the two principles:

• Scope of Application: Absolute liability applies specifically to enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, while strict liability encompasses other industries not involved in such activities.
• Scope of Liability: In absolute liability, the escape of a dangerous substance from one's premises is not essential for liability; individuals injured both within and outside the premises are covered. Strict liability, on the other hand, typically requires the escape of a dangerous substance from one's land to hold them liable.
• Exceptions: Absolute liability does not recognize exceptions, while some exceptions may be applicable under strict liability. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar emphasized that the rule laid down in M.C. Mehta's case cannot be subject to any exceptions.
• Application to Natural Use of Land: The rule of Ryland v. Fletcher is limited to the non-natural use of land, whereas absolute liability can be applied to both natural and non-natural use of land. Even if a substance is used as part of the natural use of land and it escapes, the individual may still be held liable under absolute liability if proper care was not taken.

Furthermore, the extent of the damage and the financial capability of the enterprise are considered in determining compensation. The Supreme Court emphasized that enterprises engaged in inherently dangerous activities must uphold the highest standards of safety and security. If harm occurs due to negligent activity, the enterprise must be held absolutely liable for compensation, without the opportunity to claim that reasonable care was taken and the harm occurred without negligence.

In light of advancements in science and technology, the Supreme Court found the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher outdated and replaced it with the rule of absolute liability to better address modern challenges and ensure accountability for hazardous activities.

Scope of the New Rule of Absolute Liability

• The new rule of absolute liability is significantly broader than the old rule, encompassing various aspects.
• It does not have any exceptions, indicating a comprehensive application.
• The scope of absolute liability is extensive, extending beyond cases of public negligence or fault to include personal injuries resulting from a neighbor's negligence.
• Furthermore, it now applies not only to land occupiers but also to non-occupiers of the land.