(a) Discuss the evolution and development of rule relating to 'No-fault liability' in India with help of decided cases. 20 (b)…

(a) Meaning

• No-fault liability: liability imposed without proof of negligence or intention. The defendant is liable because of the risk he creates or the relationship he stands in, not because of fault. In India it has developed through judge-made absolute liability and statutory no-fault schemes.

The starting point: strict liability

• ***Rylands v Fletcher* (1868): a person who, for his own purposes, brings onto his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes** is liable for the damage caused by its escape, even without negligence.
• Requirements:
• a dangerous thing;
• escape;
• non-natural use of land.
• Exceptions:
• Act of God;
• act of a stranger;
• the plaintiff's default;
• consent;
• statutory authority.

Evolution in India

• 1. Early statutory no-fault schemes:
• the Workmen's (now Employees') Compensation Act, 1923, under which an employer is liable for accidents arising out of and in the course of employment, regardless of fault;
• the Motor Vehicles Act: s.92A (inserted in 1982), then s.140 of the 1988 Act, which gave fixed no-fault compensation in death and permanent disablement cases; and s.163A (1994), which allowed structured-formula compensation without proof of negligence;
• the 2019 amendment replaced these with s.164 (fixed compensation of ₹5 lakh for death and ₹2.5 lakh for grievous hurt, without proof of fault) and a hit-and-run scheme (s.161).
• 2. Absolute liability after Bhopal:
• the Bhopal gas leak (1984) showed the inadequacy of Rylands;
• ***M.C. Mehta v Union of India* (1987), the Oleum gas leak case (Constitution Bench):**
• an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community;
• if harm results, it is absolutely liable, and none of the Rylands exceptions applies;
• escape and non-natural use are not required;
• the measure of compensation is correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise, so as to have a deterrent effect.
• Bhagwati CJ explained that law must keep pace with an industrialising economy.
• 3. Consolidation:
• ***Charan Lal Sahu v Union of India* (1990): the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985** was upheld, making the Union the victims' representative. Compensation followed the 1989 settlement of US$ 470 million.
• ***Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India* (1996), the Bichhri case: the Court reaffirmed absolute liability and applied the polluter-pays principle**, requiring the cost of remediation to be borne by the polluters.
• ***Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v Union of India* (1996): the precautionary and polluter-pays** principles were held to be part of Indian law.
• ***Klaus Mittelbachert v East India Hotels* (Delhi HC, 1997):** absolute liability was applied to a five-star hotel for a hidden defect in its swimming pool.
• 4. Statutory no-fault regimes:
• the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, which requires compulsory insurance and immediate relief on a no-fault basis to victims of accidents involving hazardous substances;
• the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, s.17(3), under which the Tribunal applies the no-fault principle in accident cases;
• the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, which imposes strict, channelled liability on the operator (s.4).
• 5. Recent application: the NGT held LG Polymers absolutely liable for the Visakhapatnam styrene gas leak (2020) and ordered interim payment.

Assessment

• An Indian contribution: absolute liability is an Indian contribution to tort law, rooted in Art 21, social justice and enterprise liability.
• Challenges:
• delay in compensation (Bhopal victims' claims continued for decades);
• the absence of a general statute;
• the low limits of relief under the PLI Act.

(b)

• Civil defamation: a tort remedied by damages and injunction. The plaintiff proves:
• a defamatory statement;
• that it refers to him;
• that it was published to a third person.
• Several defences are available to the defendant:

1. Justification (truth)

• Truth as a complete defence: it is a complete defence if the imputation is substantially true. The law does not protect a reputation a person does not deserve.
• Difference from criminal law: unlike criminal defamation (First Exception to BNS s.356; s.499 IPC), civil law does not require that publication be for the public good.
• The burden: the defendant must prove the truth of the facts; failing to do so may aggravate damages.

2. Fair comment (honest opinion)

• Requirements:
• the statement is comment or opinion, not an assertion of fact;
• it is on a matter of public interest, such as public conduct, public institutions or published works;
• it is based on true facts;
• it is fair, meaning an honest expression of the defendant's real opinion, however exaggerated, and not malicious (Kemsley v Foot (1952)).
• Parody and satire: in Tata Sons v Greenpeace International (Delhi HC, 2011), an online game parodying Tata was protected as fair comment on a matter of public interest.

3. Absolute privilege

• Scope: no action lies, even for false and malicious statements, made in:
• Parliament and State Legislatures (Arts 105(2), 194(2));
• judicial proceedings, by judges, advocates, parties and witnesses;
• communications between high officers of State in the course of duty.

4. Qualified privilege

• When it applies:
• statements made in the performance of a legal, moral or social duty to a person with a corresponding interest, such as employer references or complaints to the police or appropriate authorities;
• fair and accurate reports of parliamentary and judicial proceedings (Art 361A; Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977).
• ***R. Rajagopal v State of TN* (1994): as to public officials, the media are liable only if the official proves reckless disregard for truth**.
• When it is defeated: qualified privilege is defeated by malice.

5. Consent

• The plaintiff consented to the publication.

6. Other defences and mitigation

• Innocent dissemination: for booksellers, distributors and intermediaries who had no knowledge of the defamatory content, subject to s.79 of the IT Act.
• Mitigation: an apology and an offer of amends mitigate damages.
• Limitation: a suit must be filed within one year of publication (Limitation Act, Art 75).
• Guidance from English law: in England, the responsible-journalism defence (Reynolds v Times Newspapers (1999)) and the public-interest defence (Defamation Act, 2013) offer guidance, although Indian law is uncodified.

(c) The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (in force 26 January 2016)

• 1. New offences in s.3(1):
• tonsuring the head or moustache;
• garlanding with footwear;
• forcing members of these communities to dispose of carcasses, or to do manual scavenging;
• dedicating a woman as a devadasi;
• abusing by caste name in public view;
• imposing social or economic boycott;
• preventing voting or the filing of nominations;
• denying access to irrigation, forest rights or common property resources;
• sexual offences against women of these communities, such as touching, gestures and remarks.
• 2. IPC offences:
• IPC offences listed in a new Schedule, when committed against members of these communities on that ground, are triable under the Act and punishable as under the IPC with fine (s.3(2)(va));
• IPC offences punishable with 10 years or more attract life imprisonment (s.3(2)(v)).
• 3. Presumption of knowledge (s.8): the accused is presumed to have known the victim's caste or tribal identity if he had personal knowledge of the victim or the victim's family.
• 4. Duties of public servants (s.4): a public servant's wilful neglect of specified duties, such as registering a complaint or reading out a statement, is punishable.
• 5. Courts and prosecutors (s.14):
• Exclusive Special Courts and Exclusive Special Public Prosecutors were created;
• trials are to be completed, as far as possible, within two months of the filing of the charge-sheet, and the amended Rules (2016) require investigation and the charge-sheet within 60 days.
• 6. Appeals (s.14A): an appeal lies to the High Court against any judgment, sentence or order, including grant or refusal of bail, within 90 days.
• 7. Rights of victims and witnesses (Chapter IVA, s.15A): these include protection, travel and maintenance expenses, the right to be heard at bail and other stages, and relief and rehabilitation.

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 (in force 20 August 2018)

• The background: it was enacted after Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra (2018), in which the Supreme Court had required a preliminary inquiry and approval before arrest, and allowed anticipatory bail.
• Section 18A:
• no preliminary enquiry is needed to register an FIR;
• no approval is needed from any authority before arrest;
• BNSS s.482 (s.438 CrPC) on anticipatory bail does not apply, notwithstanding any judgment or order.

Subsequent judicial position

• ***Union of India v State of Maharashtra* (2019):** on review, the Court recalled the Subhash Kashinath directions.
• ***Prathvi Raj Chauhan v Union of India* (2020): the Court upheld s.18A. However, it held that courts may grant anticipatory bail where no prima facie case** is made out.
• ***Hitesh Verma v State of Uttarakhand* (2020): an insult must be because of the victim's caste and made in public view**.
• ***Shajan Skaria v State of Kerala* (2024):** anticipatory bail was granted where the material did not disclose a caste-based insult.
• Rule amendments: the rules were amended in 2016 to increase and stage the relief amounts payable to victims.