On the Centre’s curative petition, the Supreme Court says, ‘Dip into your own pocket.’
The Supreme Court told the Centre on Wednesday that it cannot act as a “hero in shining armour” and consider its curative petition seeking an additional Rs 7,844 crore from Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) successor entities for compensating victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas catastrophe.
The Supreme Court stated that it has already spoken about the’maryada’ (sanctity) of its curative jurisdiction and that, despite having considerable leeway, it is restricted by law.
“It is extremely easy to delve into someone else’s pocket and take out the money,” said Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Centre before a five-judge Constitution bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. Dip into your own pocket and offer the money, then see if you can dip into their (UCC) pocket”.
The Centre is seeking an additional Rs 7,844 crore from the successor enterprises of the US-based UCC, in addition to the USD 470 million (Rs 715 crore) it received from the American company as part of the 1989 settlement.
“I began by saying’maryada’ of the jurisdiction,” Justice Kaul said of the Centre’s filing of the curative plea. We can’t be a hero in gleaming armour, you see. It is simply not conceivable. Although we have some leeway, we are restricted by legislation. But we cannot say that we will resolve a curative petition on the basis of jurisdiction of an original suit”.
A curative petition is a plaintiff’s last resort after an unfavourable judgement has been rendered and the petition for review has been denied. The Centre had not filed a review petition to revoke the settlement, which it now wishes to strengthen.
“As far as liability and quantum of compensation are concerned, it is always open to the parties to say that I want to enter into settlement and get rid of any kind of litigation,” said the bench, which also included Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath, and JK Maheshwari, after hearing Venkataramani for over seven hours, including the hearing on Tuesday. You (the Centre) now wish to change the settlement. Can you do it on your own? It is not a decree but a compromise”.
Venkataramani stated that the Supreme Court had approved the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, and the mechanism established under it.
“Anything that was to be determined by the Welfare Commissioner under the Act and the scheme was to be placed before the court at a later point of time. That is exactly what we are attempting to accomplish now,” he explained, explaining the reasoning behind the curative petition.
The Centre has maintained that the magnitude of the actual damage done to human lives and the environment could not be accurately assessed at the time of the 1989 settlement.
Given the severity of the human catastrophe, which was unprecedented, the AG believes it is important to go beyond some of the traditional standards. “No one doubts the severity of the catastrophe, and individuals have obviously suffered,” Justice Kaul responded. It’s easy to get emotional, but we on this side of the bench have to hold back since we don’t get to play to the crowd.”
He advised Venkataramani that judges must consider the jurisdiction in which they are sitting, and that every disagreement must be resolved at some point.
“It is not that we are not sympathetic to what had happened, but when the Supreme Court does anything it has greater ramification. “There needs to be sanctity of a settlement, especially in today’s time of so much international trade and commerce,” Justice Kaul said, noting that the Centre did not file a review case but rather a curative appeal after more than 20 years of the accord.
Venkataramani stated that the tragedy had made a significant difference in people’s lives since children were born with deformities and mothers had to endure a burden for a long time.
“You acted on a premise for a quarter-century,” Justice Kaul added. You now claim that you want to act differently. Nobody can stop the Indian government from taking a proactive stance because it believes these people deserve better. The issue is that you are imposing it on them (UCC). At this stage, can we open everything?
This court must take a very narrow road in curative (petition).” Venkataramani stated that he is attempting to connect the dots, beginning with 1989, when the settlement was reached, but there were more dots after 1989.
If the government is so concerned in a welfare society that the victims need to be compensated more, Justice Kaul believes it should have paid them. According to the Attorney General, the question here is not who pays, but who is obligated to pay.
The hearing is still ongoing and will resume on Thursday. The Supreme Court questioned the Centre on Tuesday for pursuing its curative petition seeking further cash from UCC, saying the government cannot reopen a deal reached with the business over 30 years ago.
After the toxic methyl isocyanate gas leak from the Union Carbide factory on the intervening night of December 2 and 3, 1984 killed over 3,000 people and affected 1.02 lakh more, the UCC, now owned by Dow Chemicals, paid a compensation of Rs USD 470 million (Rs 715 crore at the time of settlement in 1989).
Survivors of the catastrophe have long fought for adequate compensation and medical treatment for illnesses caused by the deadly gas release. In December 2010, the Centre filed a curative case in the Supreme Court seeking increased compensation. On June 7, 2010, a Bhopal court convicted seven Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) officials to two years in prison.
Warren Anderson, the then-chairman of the UCC, was the main accused in the case but did not present at the trial.
The Bhopal CJM court designated him an absconder on February 1, 1992. Anderson was served with non-bailable warrants by Bhopal courts twice before his death in September 2014.
