Our country is a pioneer in industrial development and the demo-graphs of such development is soaring high each day. Also, with the complexity in both geography and life, it is necessary the rules established should be strict and more absolute principle of liability with the respect of no fault liability. Thus, the principle established in Rylands v Fletcher of strict liability evolved in the 19^th century, and in the period when the industrial revolution had just begun cannot be used in the modern world. The two century old principle of tortious liability compared to the present conditions of our country when it is in the verge of being one of the most globalized countries of the world, cannot be taken into consideration without modifications. It is also to notice that the technical complexity and the nature of industrial development being high at a high rate, the protection of the human rights and lives of people should be taken into consideration. Hence, the principle of strict liability cannot be still considered as the only redressal. It is also true that law cannot afford to be static and the fact that the industrial development cannot be done without the existence of inherently dangerous industries, it is very much necessary that the responsibility for the protection of people from any such type of accidents, etc is put on the shoulders of the industries themselves. From the above mentioned points, it is a key necessity that such a principle is evolved which will not only shape the jurisprudence but will also help to not carry the absolute principle of Strict liability in modern society. Thus, the necessity factors as discussed clearly helps us to understand that the principle of absolute liability is not only required to protect the human rights of the people, but also to develop tort law in India which will expand our own country’s jurisprudence.

In absolute liability only those are risk which are associated with risky or isn’t fundamental. It is material to those harmed inside and outside the preface. The rule doesn’t have any special exceptions like Strict Liability. The control which was clarified in Rylands v Fletcher applies just to the normal utilization of land, however, outright risk applies even to the common utilization of land. When a man utilizes a dangerous substance and that substance gets away, he will be held liable even if he had taken due care. The degree of the dangerous activity also depends upon the money and size related capacity of the establishment. The Supreme Court additionally expressed that the undertaking must be held to be under a “commitment to guarantee” that the hazardous dangerous activity exercises in which it must be directed with the most standard of safety and security if any damage comes because of such careless activity. The organization, then, must be held absolutely liable to adjust, for any harm caused and no defense that he had taken all sensible care and the damage caused with no carelessness on his part.

The principles of absolute and strict liability can be viewed as exceptions. It is known that a man can be at risk if he has fault. The guideline overseeing these two rules is that a man can be a subject even without his fault. Thus, this is also known as principles of “no fault liability”. Under these principles, the individual at risk might not have done or been involved in the act, but he will be at charge despite everything because the harm was caused by the act. In the principle of strict liability, there are a few exceptions where the defendant would not be made at risk. But in absolute liability, no exceptions are given to the defendant. Tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a precedent based law activity for unliquidated harms and which doesn’t necessarily happen due to breach of an agreement or the break of a trust or just fair commitment. For “no fault liability”, the individual at risk might not have done any act of negligence or carelessness or may have put in some positive attempts but however the rule will hold him liable. This guideline has its foundations in the two landmark cases – Rylands v Fletcher (Strict Liability) and MC Mehta v Union of India (Absolute Liability). The strict liability principle expresses that a person who keeps hazardous or inherently dangerous substance in his territory will be in charge of the fault if that substance escapes in any way and causes any harm. This rule stands genuine even if there are no negligence or carelessness in favor of the person keeping it. The burden of proof lies on the defendant to act how is not at risk. The principle of absolute liability, on the other hand, held that where a person is undertaking a hazardous or inherently dangerous movement and it hurts anybody because of an accident while carrying out the characteristically hazardous action, the result is strictly and absolutely liable decision where the remedy is to repay to everyone who was affected by the accident. Both these principle take after the “no fault liability principle”, a principle in which the defendant is held liable regardless of whether he is not specifically or impliedly in charge of the harms caused to the plaintiff.