英语论文网

of Factories issued orders to shut down the plant on the 7th and 24th of December respectively under the Factories Act (1948). Shriram responded by filing writ petitions of itself (No. 26 of 1986) to nullify the two orders and interim opening of its caustic chlorine plant manufacturing; glycerine, soap, hard oil, etc.

On behalf of the gas leak victims the Delhi Legal aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association filed for compensation along with the original petition of M.C. Mehta.

诉讼程序-Judicial Proceedings

I. Charges against Shriram Food and Fertilizers and objections:-

The articles of the Indian constitution under which the petitioners moved the Supreme Court were Article 21, Article 32 and an extension of Article 12. These articles cover the domain of fundamental rights and hence their definition and enforcement becomes subject to different opinions. This caused the debate on whether the Supreme Court even had jurisdiction to hear these case. But the Supreme Court, moved by the plight of the people, went above and beyond its jurisdiction to set up a president and safeguard the rights of the weaker sections of society.

The first objection put by Shriram's legal team was on the scope of Article 32, that there was no demand for compensation in the first petition by M.C. Mehta, neither was it added by amendment to it after the accident. They also stated that both Delhi Legal aid and Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association were not even the belligerents in the first petition. It seemed that they were unhappy with the Supreme Court championing this case against them. In reply the Supreme Court cited the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. The Union of India where it stated that the Supreme Court is not merely an institution for constitutional remedy but also confers a responsibility to safeguard the fundamental rights of the citizens, especially those citizens who are from weaker sections of society and cannot themselves get justice. The Supreme Court also stated that Shriram Food and Fertilizers was being hyper-technical and hence its appeals on this ground were denied.

The second objection was that on the use of Article 21 (on whose violation the petitions were filed). Shriram Food and Fertilizer was a privately owned enterprise. It did not fall under Article 12 (being party to the state or state machinery) and hence if it had violated any fundamental right of a citizen it could not be taken to court under Article 21. Chief Justice Bhagwati, presiding over the case replied by saying that the hearing for the case concluded on the 15th December 1986, and the verdict was being delivered on the 19th December 1986, just after 4 days due to the lack of time and considering the urgency it was not going to go into the details of definition of state and non-state institutions under Article 12, but since Shriram Food and Fertilizers was involved in the manufacture of commodities essential to the public life, and supplemented the state industries in doing so, it enjoyed all the benefits and liabilities which comes under Article 12, Chief Justice Bhagwati called Shriram Food and Fertilizers as a 'Public Character'. The Supreme Court also explicatively said that any industry, be it private or public, which engages in the production of goods essential to the public (infrastructure) sector was liable under Article 21. It also stated that Shriram ha