The statement regarding a drastic change in the "no-fault liability rule" in the recent past, particularly in India, is accurate and refers to the evolution from strict liability to absolute liability, especially in the context of hazardous industries.

Traditionally, tort law in common law systems, including India, primarily operated on the principle of 'fault liability'. This meant that for a defendant to be held liable for harm, it generally had to be proven that they acted negligently or intentionally. However, certain exceptions developed where liability could be imposed without proving fault, known as 'strict liability'.

Strict Liability (Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher): The classic example of strict liability is the rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868). This rule states that if a person brings or accumulates on their land anything likely to cause mischief if it escapes, they are strictly liable for any damage caused by its escape, irrespective of negligence. However, this rule came with several exceptions, such as:

1. Act of God
2. Act of a third party
3. Plaintiff's own fault
4. Consent of the plaintiff
5. Statutory authority

The Drastic Change: Evolution to Absolute Liability in India: The "drastic change" in India's no-fault liability regime was primarily triggered by the Bhopal Gas Tragedy of 1984, one of the world's worst industrial disasters. The traditional strict liability rule, with its exceptions, was deemed inadequate to deal with the scale of industrial hazards and the immense suffering caused.

This led to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1986). In this case, the Supreme Court, recognizing the limitations of Rylands v. Fletcher in a modern industrial society, propounded the doctrine of Absolute Liability.

Key aspects of Absolute Liability:

• No Exceptions: Unlike strict liability, absolute liability holds that if an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry and causes harm to anyone due to an accident in the operation of such industry, the enterprise is absolutely and non-delegably liable to compensate all those who are affected. No exceptions (like Act of God or act of a third party) are permitted.
• Higher Standard of Care: The enterprise has an absolute and non-delegable duty to ensure that no harm results from the carrying on of hazardous activity.
• Deterrent Effect: This rule aims to compel industries to adopt the highest safety standards and internalize the costs of potential harm.
• Quantum of Damages: The measure of damages is related to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise, ensuring that large corporations bear a greater responsibility.

Subsequent Legislative Developments: The principle of absolute liability was subsequently codified and reinforced by legislation:

• The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991: This Act mandates industries handling hazardous substances to take out insurance policies to provide immediate relief to victims on a no-fault basis.
• The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: This Act established the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and explicitly empowers it to apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and the polluter pays principle, which often involve the application of strict and absolute liability in environmental cases.

In conclusion, the shift from the qualified strict liability rule of Rylands v. Fletcher to the unqualified and more stringent principle of absolute liability, as articulated in M.C. Mehta and subsequently enshrined in Indian environmental legislation, represents a profound and "drastic change" in the no-fault liability regime. This evolution reflects a progressive judicial and legislative response to the challenges posed by industrialization and environmental hazards, prioritizing victim compensation and enterprise accountability.