Question

In which of the following cases, the term “Epistolary Jurisdiction” was first used in India?

• A. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India, 1981 SC
• B. Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdul Bhai, 1976 SC
• C. ADM Jabalpur v. ShivKant Shukla, 1976 SC
• D. Amba Devi v. Union of India, 1984 SC
• A. Theft under Section 378 IPC
• B. Defamation under Section 499 IPC
• C. Bigamy under Section 494 IPC
• D. Selling adulterated food or drink under Section 272 IPC
• A. Lord Burrough
• B. Justice Blackburn
• C. Lord Baron Diplock
• D. None of the above
• A. When the escape is due to vis major or act of God
• B. When the damage is due to the wrongful or malicious act of a stranger
• C. When the escape is due to the plaintiff’s own fault
• D. All of the above
• A. V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.
• B. P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.
• C. Kuldip Singh, J.
• D. M.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

In the realm of Indian jurisprudence, the term "Epistolary Jurisdiction" was first introduced in the landmark case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India, 1981 SC. This marked a significant evolution in the legal landscape wherein the courts recognized the need for the law to adapt and address the dynamic socio-economic challenges of a highly industrialized economy. The courts underscored the principle that law must not remain static but should evolve with emerging societal norms, thereby asserting India's autonomy in shaping its jurisprudence. The concept of Epistolary Jurisdiction emerged from the court's acknowledgment that procedural formalities should not hinder access to justice, emphasizing that justice must be accessible in addressing new-age legal dilemmas.

Answer 2

To address the question concerning which offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) embodies a strict liability connotation, we first need to comprehend what "strict liability" implies in a legal context. Strict liability means that liability is imposed without finding fault (such as negligence or intent). This is relevant in situations where activities can pose significant risks to the public or involve dangerous materials.

In this context, under the given options, we consider:

• Theft under Section 378 IPC - This requires the intent to steal and cannot be categorized as strict liability.
• Defamation under Section 499 IPC - Requires intent or knowledge, thus excluding it from strict liability.
• Bigamy under Section 494 IPC - Involves intent and knowledge, not applicable for strict liability.
• Selling adulterated food or drink under Section 272 IPC - This offence underlines public safety concerns and is imposed regardless of the seller's knowledge or intent regarding the food’s adulteration.

Therefore, Selling adulterated food or drink under Section 272 IPC is characterized by strict liability due to its potential hazard to public health and safety, where liability can be established without proving intent or negligence.

Answer 3

The Rule of Law described is a principle of strict liability that was primarily articulated by Justice Blackburn in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher. This legal rule makes a person strictly liable for damages caused by an item or substance that they have brought onto their land if it escapes and causes harm. The notion is that anyone who keeps something potentially harmful on their land must prevent it from escaping, and if they fail to do so, they are liable for the damages that result.

This rule has been illustrated with concepts of strict and absolute liability, particularly pertinent in scenarios involving hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, as emphasized in the related judicial discussion. The legal principle insists on high safety standards and accountability for such activities, underscoring the evolution of legal norms to address modern industrial risks.

Choice of originator of the rule: Justice Blackburn

Answer 4

In the context of legal studies, the rule established in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher is a principle of strict liability. However, there are specific exceptions when this rule is not applicable. These exceptions are outlined as follows:

1. Vis Major or Act of God: If the escape of something harmful from a person's land is due to natural events that are extraordinary and not foreseeable, such as an earthquake or severe storm, the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher does not apply.
2. Wrongful or Malicious Act of a Stranger: When the damage is caused by a third party’s wrongful or malicious act, for which the defendant cannot reasonably be held responsible, the rule is not applicable.
3. Plaintiff’s Own Fault: If the plaintiff’s own negligence or actions contributed to the escape, the defendant may not be held liable under this rule.

In light of the legal principles and exceptions mentioned, the correct answer is:

All of the above

Answer 5

The concept of ‘Absolute Liability’ in Indian law was propounded by C.J. P.N. Bhagwati. This legal theory was developed to address injuries caused by hazardous industries. It marks a significant evolution in Indian jurisprudence, reflecting the need for the law to adapt to new socio-economic conditions brought about by industrialization. The principle asserts that enterprises engaging in inherently dangerous activities bear the absolute responsibility to ensure these activities are conducted with the utmost safety standards. This approach signifies a departure from traditional liability concepts influenced by foreign legal systems and emphasizes an independent evolution of Indian legal principles.

As articulated in the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case, the law must evolve and develop new principles to handle the challenges posed by a highly industrialized economy, independent of existing rules that do not recognize strict and absolute liability.