1. Core Legal Answer & Context: The rule of absolute liability, as propounded by the Indian Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, represents a significant and progressive reform over the English common law rule of strict liability established in Rylands v. Fletcher. Strict liability holds a person liable for damages caused by the escape of a dangerous thing from their land, even if they were not negligent, provided the use of land was 'non-natural' and the thing escaped. However, it allowed for several exceptions, such as act of God, act of a third party, plaintiff's own fault, or consent of the plaintiff.

Absolute liability, on the other hand, eliminates these exceptions. It mandates that if an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and causes harm to anyone due to an accident in the course of carrying on such hazardous activity, the enterprise is absolutely and non-delegably liable to compensate all those who are affected. The enterprise cannot plead that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part. The rationale is that an enterprise carrying on hazardous activities for profit must bear the social cost of any harm it causes.

Key differences:

• Exceptions: Strict liability has exceptions; absolute liability has none.
• Nature of Activity: Strict liability applies to 'non-natural use' of land; absolute liability specifically targets 'hazardous or inherently dangerous activities'.
• Escape: Strict liability requires an 'escape' of the dangerous thing; absolute liability does not necessarily require an escape, only that harm is caused by the hazardous activity.
• Measure of Damages: Under strict liability, damages are compensatory. Under absolute liability, the measure of damages is related to the magnitude and prosperity of the enterprise, aiming to deter future harm and ensure adequate compensation, often exceeding mere compensation.

2. Relevant Statutes and Sections: While primarily a judicial innovation, the principles of absolute liability have influenced and are reflected in statutes like the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, and the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, which aim to provide compensation for victims of industrial accidents involving hazardous substances.

3. Important Landmark Cases:

• Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) (UK): Established the rule of strict liability. The defendant was held liable for damage caused by water escaping from a reservoir on his land, even without negligence, because the use of land was non-natural and the water was a dangerous thing.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (India): The Supreme Court of India evolved the rule of absolute liability, stating that an enterprise engaged in hazardous activity has an absolute and non-delegable duty to ensure no harm results from it. This case arose from the Oleum gas leak from Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries.

4. Clear Conclusion: Absolute liability is a significant reform over strict liability, particularly in the context of industrial development and environmental protection. It imposes a more stringent, no-fault liability on enterprises engaged in hazardous activities, removing the escape routes available under strict liability. This reform reflects a shift towards greater corporate responsibility, prioritizing public safety and environmental protection over industrial profits, and ensuring that victims of industrial accidents receive adequate and prompt compensation.