Supreme Court: Electrocution Deaths Attract Strict Liability On Electricity Boards, Not Absolute Liability

 The High Court had, in effect, held the disputed facts to not be of much relevance because, according to it, it is the standard of absolute liability that is applicable and not strict liability. Since absolute liability obviously has no exceptions, the presence of disputed facts, if at all, would not absolve the Appellant herein. In deciding the correctness of this finding, we must then go to the meaning of absolute liability and strict liability. {Para 10}

11. Absolute liability, as the name itself suggests, is a kind of liability that leaves no scope for exception from such liability. To put it simply, the person who has been deemed to be absolutely liable shall be so liable irrespective of the facts and circumstances in which such imputation has been made upon them. It is applied only to enterprises and comes into play when the activity in which the enterprise is engaged, is inherently dangerous or hazardous and someone has been harmed as a result of the accident that has taken place in performing such activity.

14. Now the question is whether in cases such as these i.e. electrocution of an individual, the standard of liability upon bodies such as the Appellant is strict or absolute. We are of the considered view that to impose strict liability would be more appropriate, for not in all cases can it be said that the electricity boards are liable. The transmission of electricity is undoubtedly inherently dangerous. Those who carry out the inherently dangerous activity should bear the burden, and the State is no exception to that rule. Such enterprises operate on a loss distribution mechanism i.e. they are in the best position to spread the loss incurred through insurance or higher prices, as the case may be. It can also be said that they are expected to factor in these possibilities. It is for these reasons that they are liable to compensate the injured/deceased irrespective of any fault on their part, provided that none of the exceptions to the Rule of strict liability apply to the case at hand. Granted that they would have taken all reasonable care to protect individuals from electrocution. We are supported in this view by the observations made in Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, where it has been categorically held that the Rule in Rylands (supra) applies to a number of different categories of cases inter alia, electricity also.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10659 of 2026 

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs. Rekha and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 847,MANU/SC/0863/2026

Decided On: 12.08.2026

Print Page

Which rule is to be followed Absolute Liability or Rylands v. Fletcher case?

M.C.Mehta Vs Union of India AIR 1987 SC 965 (Oleum Case)

A writ petition was filed by M.C Mehta, a social activist lawyer, he sought closure for Shriram Industries as it was engaged in manufacturing of hazardous substances and located in a densely populated area of Kirti Nagar.While the petition was pending, on 4 and 6 December 1985, there was leakage of oleum gas from one of its units which caused the death of an advocate and affected the health of several others. The incident took place on December 4, 1985.

Reported orders are relevant and important as they shed new light on how highly toxic and hazardous substances industry should be dealt with and contained and controlled to minimize hazards to the workers and general public.

Print Page