Bhopal Gas Tragedy : Union Carbide Opposes Centre's Curative Plea For Additional Compensation; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, on Thursday, reserved judgment in Centre’s curative petition against the Union Carbide Corporation seeking additional compensation for victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy.Over a course of three days, a Bench comprising Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice A.S. Oka, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice J.K. Maheshwari heard the arguments forwarded by the Attorney General for India, Mr. R. Venkataramani on behalf of the Union Government; Advocate, Ms. Karuna Nundy and Senior Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Parikh representing organisations and victims of the disaster; and Senior Advocate, Mr. Harish Salve for the Corporation. On the first day of the hearing, the Bench had posed questions to the Attorney General on the scope of the curative petition. It expressed concern that how can the Union Government seek to reopen or add-on to a settlement which was arrived at back in the year 1989. The Attorney General’s response was that given 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. On the second day, the Attorney General continued with his attempt to substantiate the Centre’s claim for additional compensation. The judges primarily raised questions regarding the grounds on which add-on can be made to the settlement that was arrived at almost three decades back. During the course of the hearing, it came to light that in an order passed by it in 1991, the Apex Court 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 appeared that the same had not been implemented by the Centre. On Thursday, in order to settle the controversy regarding the same once and for all, Justice Kaul, at the outset, asked the Attorney if it was a fact that the Union Government had not implemented the said direction. The Attorney General submitted, “Yes, that is the fact.”The curative petition, which was filed by the Union Government in December, 2010, argued that the earlier settlement was based on incorrect assumptions on the number of deaths, injuries and losses, and has not taken into account 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.In 1985, the Parliament had enacted the Bhopal Gas Leak (Processing of Claims) Act, envisaging the Union Government to represent the victims of the tragedy before the Courts. Initially, the Union Government had filed a case in the Federal District Court at New York claiming about 3 billion dollars in damages. The case was dismissed with directions being passed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts. Thereafter, a suit was filed in District Court in Bhopal. Interim direction was issued by the District Judge to Union Carbide to pay INR 350 crores to the victims of the gas leak. The Corporation approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the order of the District Judge. Upholding the principle of compensation, the High Court reduced the quantum from INR 350 crore to INR 250 crore. The same was challenged by both the Corporation and the Union Government before the Apex Court. The Supreme Court asked the parties to explore possibilities of settlement. In 1989, a settlement was arrived at between the Corporation and the Government of India, which was endorsed by the Apex Court. 470 million dollars were paid by the Corporation in the settlement. A review petition was filed by organisations, where the Apex Court refused to increase the quantum of settlement. Subsequently, a petition was filed by the Union Government seeking to re-open the settlement, which was dismissed by an order in 1991. After almost 19 years, in 2010, the Union Government filed the curative petition, which the Constitution Bench is to now decide. It appears that several class action suits were also filed by the victims of the tragedy against Union Carbide Corporation, in the US Courts. On Thursday, as Advocate, Ms. Karuna Nundy on behalf of a group of survivors commenced with her arguments, Justice Kaul noted that the Union Government had taken up the duty to represent the survivors and had stepped into their shoes. Therefore, according to him, there cannot be a separate channel for representation. He observed that Ms. Nundy’s submission cannot go beyond the four walls of the curative petition that had been filed by the Union Government. Ms. Nundy assured the Bench that her plea falls squarely within the technical considerations of the curative jurisdiction. Her arguments were premised on the ground that there was a gross miscarriage of justice; a fraud was played by the Corporation, that had suppressed material facts that go to the very root of the settlement. Justice Kaul was of the view that the plea raised by the Counsel would...

Bhopal Gas Tragedy : Union Carbide Opposes Centre's Curative Plea For Additional Compensation; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhopal Gas Tragedy : Union Carbide Opposes Centre's Curative Plea For Additional Compensation; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers