This statement encapsulates the principle of 'Absolute Liability,' a landmark doctrine established by the Supreme Court of India in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), famously known as the Oleum Gas Leak Case. This principle significantly expanded the scope of liability for hazardous industries, moving beyond the traditional 'strict liability' rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher.

Background and Evolution from Strict Liability:

The rule of strict liability, as established in Rylands v. Fletcher, held that a person who brings or accumulates on his land anything likely to cause mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and is answerable for all damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. However, this rule had several exceptions, such as act of God, act of a third party, plaintiff's own fault, and statutory authority.

The M.C. Mehta case arose from the Oleum gas leak from Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries in Delhi, which caused several deaths and injuries. The Supreme Court, recognizing the inadequacy of the strict liability rule in the context of modern industrial hazards, propounded the doctrine of Absolute Liability.

The Principle of Absolute Liability:

The Court held that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas, the enterprise owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results from the carrying on of such hazardous activity. If any harm does occur, the enterprise must be held absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident, and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions that apply to the rule of strict liability.

Rationale Behind the Principle:

1. Deep Pockets Principle: The Court reasoned that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous activity for profit has the financial capacity to bear the cost of any accident. The cost of such accidents should be treated as an 'appropriate term of overheads' or a necessary expense of carrying on such an activity. This ensures that the enterprise internalizes the social cost of its operations.
2. Deterrence: By imposing absolute liability, the Court aimed to incentivize hazardous industries to adopt the highest standards of safety and to take all necessary precautions to prevent accidents.
3. Social Justice: The principle reflects a commitment to social justice, ensuring that victims of industrial accidents are adequately compensated, especially when they are often vulnerable and lack the means to prove negligence or overcome the exceptions of strict liability.
4. Non-Delegable Duty: The duty to prevent harm from hazardous activities is non-delegable, meaning the enterprise cannot escape liability by arguing that the accident was caused by the fault of an employee or a third party.

Implications:

The M.C. Mehta judgment marked a paradigm shift in environmental jurisprudence in India. It established a more stringent standard of liability for hazardous industries, prioritizing public safety and environmental protection over industrial profits. This principle has since been codified and applied in various environmental laws and judicial pronouncements, reinforcing the idea that enterprises benefiting from dangerous activities must bear the full responsibility for any harm they cause, without recourse to traditional defenses.