CLAT Legal Reasoning
As the name indicates, CLAT Legal Reasoning section has a distinct element of law. To crack these questions, ideally, a candidate has to keep reading any news and opinion articles from at least one newspaper. A basic idea regarding the Current Affairs of legal issues will drastically improve the reading speed and comprehension. Though deeper understanding of law is not mandatory, keeping oneself abreast of the current happenings will prove to a competitive edge. The passages have been selected carefully to encompass a legal context in them.
As with the CLAT Logical Reasoning section and the CLAT English Language section, adequate attention has been given to ensure the passages are from a range of topics. Needless to say, the questions are pegged exactly at the level of difficulty of CLAT, with an eye on the samples published by the Consortium of NLUs.
Enough said. In for some serious Legal Reasoning? Let’s get cracking!
CLAT 2020 Legal Reasoning: LG Polymers Gas Leak
On 7th May 2020, a major leakage of Styrene gas was reported from the plasticsmanufacturing plant 'LG Polymers' located on the outskirts of the Visakhapatnam city. The accident took place when the cooling system of a polymers plant got clogged due to the mismanagement of factory workers and resulted in turning the city into a gas chamber. The gas which leaked was styrene gas, which is a ‗hazardous chemical‘ under Rule 2(e) plus Entry 583 of Schedule I of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules 1989.
Principle 1: Polluter Pays Principle
The 'Doctrine of Polluter Pays' is a well-established principle of environmental law, which places an obligation of compensating the damage to the people who ought to reimburse it and also have the capacity to disburse it. The principle explicitly affirms that the person who damages or destructs the environment has the absolute obligation to bear the cost of meliorating the environment. In Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India case, the Apex Court of India held that the polluter is legally responsible to reimburse the individual sufferers as well as pay for the revitalization of the damaged environment.
Principle 2: Principle of Strict Liability
The principle of Strict Liability was established in the year 1868 in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, where the Court held that any person who uses his/her land in an 'unnatural manner' and who keeps any 'hazardous substance' on such premises would be held liable under the principle of strict liability for any 'damage' occurred on the 'escape' of such perilous substance. However, the person is liable only when there is non-natural use of land; the principle also restricts liability when the escape is due to an act of strangers, Act of God, for example a natural calamity; due to the person injured or when it happens with the consent of the person injured or with statutory authority.
Principle 3: Principle of Absolute Liability
The absolute liability is a stringent form of Strict Liability as it is devoid of any exceptions that were mentioned under the earlier principle. for the first time in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. This principle implies that whenever an enterprise is engaged in any dangerous or hazardous activity that threatens the people working in the enterprise and those living nearby, it owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community that no harm will be caused. If harm is indeed caused, the enterprise will have to compensate for damages, and can‘t use exceptions provided in the case of strict liability. The enterprise can‘t claim that the harm has not been caused due to negligence (absence of due care) or that it had taken all reasonable precautions.
The argument of LG Polymers that, they did not know that the Styrene Gas could leak:
- is a strong argument and can reduce their liability under the Polluter Pays Principle.
- is a strong argument and can reduce their liability under the Strict Liability Principle.
- is a weak argument and will not help in reducing the liability of LG Polymers under any of the principles.
- is a weak argument but may help in reducing their liability under the Strict Liability Principle.
Explanatory Answer
Under the polluter pay principle and the absolute liability principle, the polluter and the person who caused harm cannot use exceptions – they must pay for having the harmful substance released, due to negligence or otherwise.
The strict liability principle states the following exceptions – due to the person injured, act of strangers, ‘natural’ use of land, act of God, or with the consent of person injured or statutory authority. Negligence of the harmful potential of Styrene gas is therefore a weak argument that does not help in limiting liability.
CAT Coaching in Chennai
CAT 2021
Enroll at 49,000/-
44,000/-
Online Classroom Batches Starting Now!