Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Supreme Court Expresses Displeasure At Centre Not Implementing 1991 Direction To Take Insurance Policies For Future Claims

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, on Wednesday, continued hearing the submissions made by the Attorney General for India, Mr. R. Venkataramani in Centre’s curative petition against Union Carbide Corporation seeking additional compensation for victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. During the course of the hearing, on Wednesday, the Court noted that in one of its judgments in the proceedings, in 1991, it had directed the Union Government to take out insurance policies for at least 1 lakh people, so that it can take care of the future claims. However, it appears that the same had not been implemented by the Centre.A 5 Judge Bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice A.S. Oka, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice J.K. Maheshwari commenced with the hearing of the matter on Tuesday (10.01.2023). The primary obstacle that the Attorney General had to face was the slew of queries on the scope of the Union Government’s curative petition. The judges raised questions about Centre’s intention to reopen/add on to a settlement which was arrived at in 1989, on the basis of subsequent developments. The Attorney General vehemently argued that in the present case, considering the enormity of the tragedy, the Apex Court ought to travel beyond the conventional principles to do complete justice to the victims of the disaster. Attempting to substantiate the claim for additional compensation on the ground that the settlement between the Government and the delinquent Corporation was based on an incorrect assumption of total number of deaths, injuries and losses, the Attorney General concluded his submissions on Wednesday.The curative petition which was filed by the Union Government in December, 2010, argued that apart from incorrect assumption of deaths, injuries and losses, the settlement figure does not factor in the subsequent environmental degradation. As per the plea, the earlier figures for death was 3000 and for injury was 70,000, whereas the actual figures for death is 5295 and for injury, it is 5,27,894. When the matter came up for hearing for the first time before this Constitution Bench, in September, 2022, it had asked the Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta to seek instructions from Centre regarding its present stand on the curative petition filed by it more than a decade ago. In October, 2022, the Attorney General informed the Bench that the Union Government was keen to pursue the curative petition. Accordingly, the Bench permitted the Union Government to represent the claims of persons who have suffered the Bhopal gas leak. So far as the other non-governmental organisations were concerned, without foreclosing their right to be heard, the Bench refused to grant them liberty to file pleadings. On Wednesday, at the threshold, Justice Kaul acknowledged the enormity of the tragedy. However, he made it abundantly clear that the Court cannot afford to be guided by emotions; it ‘does not have the privilege to play to the galleries’. He added that though the Attorney General has time and again urged the Bench to not delve into technicalities considering its unprecedented nature, every dispute ought to have a closure at some point in time. Even if the Court is sensitive to the disaster that took place in Bhopal, it ought to bear in mind the ramification it’s decision would have on other matters. Justice Oka indicated that the Attorney General limits his submissions to the aspect of the scope of curative petition in terms of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Rupa Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, and if, at all, the scope can be expanded by a Co-ordinate Bench. “We are conscious of that fact and have sympathies for those who suffered. But, ultimately you have to place it within the four walls of curative jurisdiction.”In the context of the legal maxim, ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’, the Attorney General submitted, that if somebody has a right, law will always find a remedy. He emphasised that when the settlement was entered into, the Government did not have an answer to the situation ‘fully and effectively’. The same ought not to preclude it from claiming the additional compensation on behalf of the affected persons. Justice Kaul was of the opinion that the Union Government might be eager to don the robe of a parens patriae and seek additional compensation, but, the question for consideration would be, ‘can the burden of the same be fixed on Union Carbide Corporation?’“You (UoI) acted on a premise for a quarter of a century. Now,you say you want to act differently. No one prohibits the Govt.of India from taking a proactive step and say that we feel that the people deserve more. Do it, nobody is stopping you.But can you fix it on them (UCC)?”The Attorney General argued that the settlement order reflects that the endorsement of the settlement was based on certain assumptions and those ‘assumptions are no longer valid, relevant or final’.Justice Kaul was perturbed that the effect of the said argument,...

Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Supreme Court Expresses Displeasure At Centre Not Implementing 1991 Direction To Take Insurance Policies For Future Claims

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags