1. Core Legal Answer & Context: No-fault liability, also known as strict or absolute liability, holds a person liable for damages caused by their actions or omissions, regardless of fault or negligence. Its evolution in India reflects a progressive shift from the English common law principle of strict liability to a more stringent 'absolute liability' for hazardous activities.

The journey began with the English rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, which established strict liability for the escape of a 'mischievous thing' from one's land, provided it was a 'non-natural use' of land. This rule, however, had several exceptions (e.g., act of God, plaintiff's consent, act of third party).

India adopted this principle but significantly evolved it. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984) exposed the limitations of Rylands v. Fletcher in dealing with large-scale industrial disasters. This led the Supreme Court of India to formulate the doctrine of 'absolute liability', which is a stricter form of no-fault liability.

2. Relevant Statutes and Sections:

• Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991: This Act mandates compulsory insurance for industries handling hazardous substances to provide immediate relief to victims of accidents, based on the principle of no-fault liability.
• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Sections 140 and 163A provide for 'no-fault liability' in motor vehicle accidents, allowing victims or their legal representatives to claim compensation without proving fault on the part of the owner or driver, up to a certain limit.
• Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: While not directly codifying absolute liability, it provides a framework for environmental protection, under which the principle is often applied.

3. Important Landmark Cases:

• Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 (English Case): This case laid down the foundation for strict liability. The defendant was held liable for damage caused by the escape of water from his reservoir, even without negligence, because it was a 'non-natural use' of land and a 'mischievous thing' escaped.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (1987) 1 SCC 395 (Indian Case): This is the most significant landmark case. The Supreme Court, in response to the Oleum gas leak in Delhi, propounded the doctrine of 'absolute liability'. It held that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, which causes harm to anyone due to an accident in the operation of such industry, is absolutely and non-delegably liable to compensate all those who are affected. Crucially, it rejected the exceptions available under Rylands v. Fletcher, stating that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was not applicable in the context of modern industrial society and that a more stringent rule was needed for hazardous industries.

4. Clear Conclusion: The evolution of no-fault liability in India demonstrates a robust judicial activism aimed at protecting public interest, especially in the face of industrial hazards. From the strict liability with exceptions in Rylands v. Fletcher, India moved to the absolute liability doctrine, which imposes a non-delegable and non-exceptable duty on hazardous enterprises, ensuring victims receive prompt and adequate compensation, thereby prioritizing social justice over traditional tort principles.