All India Bar Examination (AIBE) 5-V Previous Year Question Papers with Answers

The correct option is B: Shriram Food and Fertilisers case.

This is because this case, also known as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, is the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India that laid down the principle of absolute liability for hazardous or inherently dangerous activities. The case arose from an accident that occurred in 1985 at the Shriram Food and Fertilisers plant in Delhi, where a large quantity of oleum gas leaked and caused harm to several people, including an advocate who died due to exposure to the gas. The Supreme Court held that the enterprise engaged in such activities is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident, regardless of any negligence or fault on its part. The court also ruled that such liability is not subject to any exceptions that apply to the tortious principle of strict liability, such as act of God, consent of the plaintiff, or statutory authority. The court stated that "where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher".

Option A is incorrect because Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi is a case that dealt with the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and not with the principle of absolute liability for hazardous or inherently dangerous activities. The case arose from the detention and torture of a French citizen by the Delhi police under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and basic necessities of life, and that any law that authorizes preventive detention must be fair, just and reasonable.

Option C is incorrect because People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India is a case that dealt with the right to food and starvation deaths in India, and not with the principle of absolute liability for hazardous or inherently dangerous activities. The case arose from a writ petition filed by a human rights organization seeking relief for drought-affected people in Rajasthan and other states. The Supreme Court issued several directions to the central and state governments to ensure food security and prevent hunger and malnutrition among the poor and vulnerable sections of society.

Option D is incorrect because State of Punjab v. Mahinder Singh Chawla is a case that dealt with the right to health care and medical assistance under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and not with the principle of absolute liability for hazardous or inherently dangerous activities. The case arose from a writ petition filed by a patient suffering from cancer who was denied free treatment by a government hospital in Punjab. The Supreme Court held that the right to health care and medical assistance is an integral part of the right to life, and that the state has a constitutional obligation to provide free medical aid to poor patients who cannot afford it.