DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE

LIABILITY
DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST
NAVIN PRABHU.S.V.
131801098
DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Absolute liability is a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdiction.
To be convicted of an ordinary crime, in certain jurisdictions, a person must not only have committed a
criminal action but also have had a deliberate intention or guilty mind . In a crime of strict or absolute
liability, a person could be guilty even if there was no intention to commit a crime. The difference between
strict and absolute liability is whether the defence of a “mistake of fact” is available: in a crime of absolute
liability, a mistake of fact is not a defence. Strict or absolute liability can also arise from inherently dangerous
activities or defective products that are likely to result in a harm to another, regardless of protection taken,
such as owning a pet rattle snake; negligence is not required to be proven.
DEFINITION

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY: If an industry or enterprise is engaged in some inherently dangerous activity from which it
is deriving commercial gain and that activity is capable of causing catastrophic damage then the industry officials
are absolutely liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved parties. The industry cannot plead that all safety
measures were taken care of by them and that there was negligence on their part. They will not be allowed any
exceptions neither can they take up any defence like that of ‘Act of God’ or ‘Act of Stranger’.

STRICT LIABILITY: The earlier stated definition remains half done if the following terms are not emphasized
upon:
Dangerous Thing: According to the above mentioned rule, the liability of escape of a thing from a person’s land will arise
only when the thing or substance collected is a dangerous thing i.e. a thing which is likely to cause mischief or damage
to other people in person or their property on its escape. In various torts cases filed worldwide, the ones involving the
doctrine of strict liability have held “large body of water, gas, electricity, vibrations, yew trees, sewage, flag-pole,
explosives, noxious fumes, rusty wires, etc. as dangerous things.
Escape: The thing that has caused damage or mischief must ‘escape’ from the area under the occupation and control of
the defendant.
INDIAN SCENARIO
In India, absolute liability is a standard of tort liability that stipulates:
“where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone
on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for
example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who
are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis
the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher .”
In other words, absolute liability is strict liability without any exception. That liability standard has been laid
down by the Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum gas leak case). The exceptions include the
following:
• Plaintiff’s own mistake
• Plaintiff’s consent
• Natural disasters
• Third Party’s mistake
• Part of a statutory duty
The Indian Judiciary tried to make a strong effort following the Bhopal gas tragedy, December,
1984 (Union Carbide Company vs. Union of India) to enforce greater amount of protection to
the Public. The Doctrine of Absolute Liability was therefore evolved in Oleum Gas Leak Case and
can be said to be a strong legal tool against rogue corporations that were negligent towards
health risks for the public. This legal doctrine was much more powerful than the legal Doctrine
of Strict Liability developed in the case of English tort law Rylands v. Fletcher[1868]. This meant
that the defaulter could be held liable for even third party errors when the public was at a
realistic risk. This could ensure stricter compliance to standards that were meant to safeguard
the public.
DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST

The public trust doctrine is the principle that the sovereign holds in trust for public use some resources such
as shoreline between the high and low tide lines, regardless of private property ownership.
The doctrine has also been used to provide public access across and provide for continued public interest in
those areas where land beneath tidally influenced waters has been filled. In some cases, the uses of that land
have been limited (to transportation, for instance) and in others, there has been provision for public access
across them.
The doctrine has been employed to assert public interest in oil resources discovered on tidally influenced
lands and has also been used to prevent the private ownership of fish stocks and crustacean beds.
In most states in the United States, lakes and navigable-in-fact streams are maintained for drinking and
recreation purposes under a public-trust doctrine.
Basically, the ancient Roman Empire developed this legal theory i.e. Doctrine of the Public Trust. The Public
Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests
have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a
subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available
to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the
resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or
commercial purposes. 

Public trust doctrine serves two purposes: it mandates affirmative state action for effective management of
resources and empowers citizens to question ineffective management of natural resources. It is a common
law concept, defined and addressed by academics in the United States and the United Kingdom. Various
common properties; including rivers, the seashore, and the air, are held by the government in trusteeship
for the uninterrupted use of the public. The sovereign could not, therefore, transfer public trust properties
to a private party if the grant would interfere with the public interest. The public trust has been widely used
and scrutinized in the United States, but its scope is still uncertain. Various have been made to apply this
doctrine to protect navigable and non-navigable waters, public land sand parks, and to apply it to both
public and private lands and ecological resources.
DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST IN INDIA
The Rule of Law runs close to the rule of life and the Indian Constitution, in its humanist vision, has made
environmental-ecological preservation a fundamental value. The higher jurisprudence of Article 21 of the
Constitution (right to life) embraces the protection and preservation of nature's gift without which life
ceases to be viable and human rights become a simulacrum. In other words, this right to life under article
21 has been extended to include the right to a healthy environment and the right to livelihood. The third
aspect of the right to life is the application of public trust doctrine to protect and preserve the public land.
When the Indian courts have applied the public trust doctrine, they have considered it not only as an
international law concept, but one, which is well established in their national legal system.

Accepting public trust doctrine as a part of common law, the Indian courts have applied this explicitly in
three recent cases, the first one in 1997 and two cases in 1999 , including the case under consideration.
Articles 48A and 51A of the Constitution also furnish the principles of jurisprudence, which are
fundamental to our governance under the Rule of Law.
CASE LAW
The doctrine is first mentioned in M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath and others where the Indian Supreme Court applied public trust
with regard to the protection and preservation of natural resources. In this case, the State Government granted lease of
riparian forestland to a private company for commercial purpose. The purpose of the lease was to build a motel at the bank
of the River Beas. A report published in a national newspaper alleged that the motel management interfered with the natural
flow of the river in order to divert its course and to save the motel from future floods. The Supreme Court initiated suo motu
action based on the newspaper item because the facts disclosed, if true, would be a serious act of environmental
degradation.
The Supreme court in M.C. Mehta started that the Public Trust Doctrine  primarily rests on the principle that certain
resources like air, sea, waters and forests have such great importance to the people as a whole that it would be unjustified to
make them a subject of private ownership . The court observed that:
Our Indian legal system, which is based on English common law, includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence.
The State is the trustee of all natural resources, which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. Public at large is
the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is under a
legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private
ownership. As rivers, forests, minerals and such other resources constitute a nation's natural wealth. These resources are not
to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation. Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to
develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best possible way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in the
interest of the nation. Thus, the Public Trust doctrine is a part of the law of the land. The court also ruled that there is no any
justifiable reason to rule out the application of the public trust doctrine in all ecosystems in India