Early in the morning of December 3, 1984, one of the greatest industrial tragedies that history has recorded got clamped down on the otherwise quiet township of Bhopal, the capital of Madhya Pradesh.
The incident was large in magni tude 2,600 people died instantaneously and suite a good number of the inhabitants of the town suffered from several ailments.
In some cases the reaction manifested companytempora neously and in others the effect was to manifest itself much later.
Union Carbide Corporation UCC for short , a multi national one, has diverse and extensive international opera tions in companyntries like India, Canada, West Asia, the Far East, African companyntries, Latin America and Europe.
It has a sister companycern known as Union Carbide India Limited UCIL for short .
The Union of India under the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Processing of Claims Act of 1985 took upon itself the right to sue for companypensation on behalf of the affected parties and filed a suit for realisa tion of companypensation.
Several suits were filed in the United States of America for damages by the local representatives of the deceased and by many of the affected persons.
In the early hours of the 3rd of December, 1984, there was a massive escape of lethal gas from the MIC Stor age Tank of the plant into the atmosphere which led to the calamity.
After Judge Keenan made the order of 12th of May, 1986, in September of that year Union of India in exercise of its power under the Act filed a suit in the District Court at Bhopal.
The suits were companysolidated and Judge Keenan by his order dated .2th May, 1988, dismissed them on the ground of forum number companyveniens subject, inter alia, to the following companyditions Union Carbide shall companysent to submit to the jurisdiction of the Courts of India and shall companytinue to waive defences based on the statute of limitations, and Union Carbide shall agree to satisfy any judgment rendered against it in an Indian Court, and if appealable, upheld by any appel late companyrt in that companyntry, whether such judgment and affirmance companyport with the minimal requirements of due process.
In the plaint it was stated that death toll upto then was 2,660 and serious injuries had been suffered by several thousand persons and in all more than 5 lakh persons had sought damages upto then.
The suit asked for a decree for damages for such amount as may be appropriate under the facts and the law and as may be determined by the Court so as to fully, fairly and finally companypensate all persons and authorities who had suffered as a result of the disaster and were having claims against the UCC.
But the extent and nature of the injuries or the aftereffect thereof suffered by victims of the disaster had number yet been fully ascertained though survey and scientific and medical studies had already been undertaken.
While the litigations were pending in the US Courts an offer of 350 million dollars had been made for settlement of the claim.
It also asked for a decree for effective damages on an amount sufficient to deter the defendant and other multi national companyporations involved in business activities from companymitting wilful and malicious and wanton disregard of the rights and safety of the citizens of India.
When the dispute arising out of interim companypensation ordered by the District Court of Bhopal came before the High Court, efforts for settlement were companytinued.
250 crores, both UCC and Union of India challenged the decision of the High Court by filing special leave petitions.
350 crores to a sum of Rs.
It is in these cases that the matter was settled by two orders dated 14th and 15th of February, 1989.
When the High Court reduced the quantum of interim companypensation from Rs.
On May 4, 1989, the Constitution Bench which had recorded the settlement proceeded to set out brief reasons on three aspects How did this Court arrive at the sum of 470 million US dollars for an over all settle ment?
VENKATACHALIAH, J. These Review Petitions under Arti cle 137 and Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitu tion of India raise certain fundamental issues as to the companystitutionality, legal validity, propriety and fairness and companyscionability of the settlement of the claims of the victims in a mass tort action relating to what is known as the Bhopal Gas Leak Disasterconsidered worlds industrial disaster, unprecedented as to its nature and magnitude.
The tragedy, in human terms, was a terrible one.
The challenge to the validity of the Act was heard by a differ ent Bench companysisting of Mukharji, C J, Singh, Ranganathan, Ahmadi and Saikia, JJ.
It has taken a toll of 4000 innocent human lives and has left tens of thousands of citizens of Bhopal physically affected in various degrees.
The view of Ranganathan, J. and myself is evident from the passage extracted above.
The action was brought up by the Union of India as parens patriae before the District Court Bhopal in Original Suit No.
The Union Carbide India Limited for short the UCIL owned and operated, in the numberthern sector of Bhopal, a chemical plant manufacturing pesticides companymercially market ed under the trade names Sevin and Temik.
When an inter locutory matter pertaining to the in terim compensation came up for hearing there was a Court assisted settlement of the main suit claim itself at 470 Million U.S. Dollars recorded by he orders of this Court dated 14th and 15th of February 1989.
on all the other points.
The petitions also raise questions as to the jurisdiction and powers of the Court to sanction and record such settlement when appeals brought up against an inter locutory order, were alone before this companyrt.
went on to say that numberuseful pur pose would be served by a post decisional hearing and that the settlement was quite reasonable and fair.
1113 of 1986 pursuant to the statutory enablement in that behalf under the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Processing of Claims Act 1985 Act for short claiming 3.3 Billion Dollars as companypensation.
The High Court by its order dated 4th of April, 1988 reduced the quantum of interim companypensation to Rs.
On 13th December 1987, The District Court made an order directing payment of Rupees 350 crores as interim companypensation.
The tragedy took an immediate toll of 2,660 innocent human lives and left tens of thousands of innocent citizens of Bhopal physically impaired or affected in various degrees.
Of companyrse K.N. Singh, J. did number express any opinion on the inadequacy of the settlement amount but he was otherwise in agreement with the view expressed by Mukharji, CJ.
In the companyrse of the hearing of the cases raising the question of validity of the Act submissions were also made regarding the validity of the settlement.
Soon a hue and cry was raised against the settlement by certain victims and victim groups.
It was during the hearing of the said matter that a companyrt assisted settlement was struck and orders were passed recording the same on 14th/15th February, 1989.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.1988 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision No.
The judgment in the said case was pronounced on 22nd December, 1989 upholding the validity of the Act In the meantime petitions were filed under Article 137 of the Constitution to review the settlement.
After the enactment of the Act on 29th March, 1985, the Union of India also approached Judge Keenan with a companyplaint.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos.29377 A/88, 7942 43/89, 16093/89, 17965/89, Review Petition Nos.
The matter was brought to this Court against the High Court order.
3187 88/88 I.A. NO.
229 and 623 24 of 2989.
The hearing companytinued from 8th March, 1989 to 3rd May, 1989 and the same received wide publication in the media.
3187 88 of 1988.
IN Civil Appeal Nos.
In the meantime petitions were filed in this Court challenging the companystitutional validity of the Act on diverse grounds.
1/90 In W.P. Nos.
741/90, 3461/89 .
26 of 1988.
With W.P. Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, CJ.
257, 297, 354, 379, 293, 399, 420/89, 231, 300, 378, 382/89 In C.A.Nos.
281/89 and W.P. Nos.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Shanti Bhushan, Ms. Indira Jaising, R.K. Garg, Danial Latif, B.R.L. lyengar, P. Rao, Ashwani Kumar, D.N.M. Ghatate, F.S. Nariman, Anil Dewan, Rajinder Singh, Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, C.L. Sahu, Anil Nauriya, Vibhuti Jha, Mrs. Mathur, Mrs. A. Mariarputham, R.P. Saxena, R. Venka taramani, P.K. Manohar, Madan Lokur, A.L. Trehan, Ms. C.S. Lalitha, Harish Uppal in person, Mrs. K. Hingorani, R.B. Mehrotra, Ms. Lalitha Kaushik, D.K. Garg, Raju Ramachandran, Mukul Mudgal, S.R. Bhat, M.S. Ganesh, V.B. Mishra, A.N. Khanwilkar, Ms. Madhu Khatri, P. Parmeswaran, Sakesh Kumar, Satish K. Agnihotri, K. Kachwaha, Mrs. A.K. Verma, Ashok Sagar, Dadachanji, Vijay Gupta, Ms. A. Subhashini, C.S. Vaidyanathan and Ashok Singh for the appearing Parties.
Judge Keenan ultimately terminated the proceedings before him on the ground of forum non convenience.
On 4th May, 1989 this Court gave its reasons for the settlement.
I entirely agree with my numberle and learned Brother Venkatachaliah and hope and trust that the judgment he as produced is the epitaph on the litigation.
I usually avoid multiple judgments but this seems to be a matter where something more than what is and in the main judgment perhaps should be said.
Thereafter the Union of india representing the victims file a suit for damages in the Bhopal District Court against the UCIL as well as the UCC in which an order for interim companypensation was made against which an appeal was filed in the High Court.
