UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES COLLEGE OF LEGAL STUDIES DEHRADUN LEGAL METHOD AND LEGAL REASONONG MASS

TORT: BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY

SUBMITTED TO Ms. Shikha Dimri

SUBMITTED BY NAME- ANJALI BHATT SAP ID- (500012004) SEC - A COURSE BBA LLB

INDEX
INTRODUCTION What is a tort? Difference between a crime and a tort. Constituents of tort General Wrongful act Damage Remedy Classifications of tort Mass tort Bhopal Gas Tragedy History of Union Carbide Plant in Bhopal Trial of Bhopal Gad incident Group of ministers The Receding Prospects of Justice for Bhopal Misplaced Commentary Latest news on the case Conclusion

INTRODUCTION WHAT IS A TORT?

Tort means a breach of some duty independent of contract giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which compensation is recoverable. The person committing a tort or wrong is called a tort feasor or wrong doer, and his misdoing is a tortious act. The principal aim of the law of torts is compensation of victims or their dependants.1

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CRIME AND A TORT Tort is an infringement or privation of the private or civil rights belonging to individuals
whereas a crime is a breach of public rights and duties which affect the whole community.

In tort, the wrongdoer has to compensate the injured party whereas, in crime he is
punished by the State in the interests of the society.

In tort, the action is brought by the injured party but in crime, the proceedings are
conducted in the name of the State and the guilty person is punished by the State.

CONSTITUENTS OF TORT
General Wrongful act Damage Remedy

General
The law of torts is fashioned as an instrument for making people adhere to standards of reasonable behavior and respect the rights and interests of one another.2 By interest here is meant a claim, want or desire of a human being or group of human beings which the human being or the group of human being seeks to satisfy. It is however, obvious that every want or desire of a person cannot be protected nor can a person claim that whenever he suffers loss he

1 2

G.Williams, The aims of the Law of Torts, (1951) 4 Current Legal Problems, 137. SETALVAD, Common Law in India

should be compensated by the person who is the author of the loss.3 The law, therefore determines what interests need protection and it also holds the balance when there is a conflict of protected interests.4 A protected interest gives rise to a legal right which in turn gives rise to a corresponding legal duty. Some legal rights are absolute in the sense that mere violation of them leads to the presumption of legal damage. There are other legal rights where there is no presumption and actual damage is necessary to complete the injury which is redressed by the law.

Wrongful Act
An act which infringes a legal right is a wrongful act. The act complained of should, under the circumstances, be legally wrongful as regards the party complaining; that is, it must prejudicially affect him in some legal right; merely that it will, however directly, do him harm in his interest is not enough.5 An act which, prima facie, appears to be innocent may become tortious, if it invades the legal right of another person. A familiar instance is the erection on ones own land of anything which obstructs the light to a neighbours house. It is, no doubt, lawful to erect what one pleases on ones own land; but if by twenty years enjoyment, the neighbor has acquired the legal right to the unobstructed transmission of the light across that land, the erection of any building which substantially obstructs it is an invasion of the right, and so not only does damage, but is unlawful and injurious.

Damage

But acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot in a practical world be treated so as to give a

right to every person injured by them to demand relief. In this way rules of law arise which limit the range of complaints and the extent of t heir remedy.
4

For example: privileged occasions, where the interests of the person defamed in his reputation is subordinated to

the interest of the person defaming in the exercise of freedom of speech on these occasions.
55

Rogers v. Rajendro Dutt, (1860) 8 MIA 103 (136) : 13 MOORE PC 209. An empty threat to prosecute is not

actionable : Banwari Lal v. Municipal Board, Lucknow, (1941) OWN 864 : AIR 1941 Oudh 572 : 1941 OLR 542.

Damage means the harm or loss suffered or presumed to be suffered by a person as a result of some wrongful act of another. The sum of money awarded by court to compensate damage is called damages. From the point of view of presumption of damage, rights are classified into (1) absolute and (2) qualified. When an absolute right is violated the law conclusively presumes damage although the person wronged may have suffered no pecuniary loss whatsoever. The damage so presumed is called legal damage. Violation of absolute right is, therefore, actionable per se, i.e., without proof of any damage. In case of qualified rights, there is no presumption of legal damage and the violation of such rights is actionable only on proof of actual or special damage. In other words, in case of an absolute right, the injury or wrong, i.e., the tortious action, is complete the moment the right is violated irrespective of whether it is accompanied by any actual damage, whereas in case of a qualified right, the injury or wrong is not complete unless the violation of the right results in actual or special damage.

REMEDY
Tort is a civil injury, but all civil injuries are not torts. The wrongful act must come under the category of wrongs for which the remedy is a civil action for damages. The essential remedy for a tort is an action for damages, but there are other remedies also, e.g., injunction may be obtained in addition to damages in certain cases of wrongs. Where there is dispossession of land, the plaintiff in addition to damages also claims to recover the land itself. But it is principally the right to damages that brings such wrongful acts within the category of torts. There also exists a large number of unauthorized acts for which only a criminal prosecution can be instituted. Further, damages claimable in a tort action are unliquidated damages. The law of torts is said to be a development of the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium(there is no wrong without a remedy). Jus signifies here the legal authority to do or to demand something; and remedium may be defined to be the right of action, or the means given by the law, for recovery or assertion of a right. The maxim does not mean, as it is sometimes supposed, that there is a legal remedy for every moral or political wrong. If this were its meaning, it would be

manifestly untrue. There is no legal remedy for the breach of a solemn promise not under seal and made without consideration.6 CLASSIFICATION OF TORTS PERSONAL WRONGS -Wrongs affecting safety and freedom of the person: Assault, battery, false imprisonment . -Wrongs affecting personal relations in the family: Seduction, enticing away of servants. -Wrongs affecting reputation: Slander and libel. -Wrongs affecting estate generally: Deceit, slander of title, fraudulent competition by colourable imitation, malicious prosecution, conspiracy. WRONGS TO PROPERTY -Trespass: (a) to land (b) to goods -Interference with right analogous to property, such as private franchises, patents, copy rights, trademarks. WRONGS TO PERSON, ESTATE AND PROPERTY GENERALLY -Nuisance -Negligence -Breach of absolute duties specially attached to the occupation of fixed property, to the ownership and custody of dangerous things, and to the exercise of certain public callings.

Under Indian Law there is no legal remedy for the breach of a solemn promise made without consideration whether under seal or not.

MASS TORT
WHAT IS MASS TORT? A mass tort is a civil action involving numerous plaintiffs against one or a few corporate defendants in state or federal court. As the name implies a mass tort includes many plaintiffs and law firms have used the mass media to reach possible plaintiffs. Mass torts may include mass disaster torts, mass toxic torts and product liability torts. We will be mainly dealing with toxic torts. A toxic tort is one in which the wrongful act consists of exposure to a toxic substance. This could occur in a variety of ways, such as an accidental release (e.g. a chemical spill or explosion), workplace exposure (e.g. to solvent fumes or asbestos), or harmful effects from medications or other consumer products. The injury in a toxic tort case may be acute (immediate) fatal poisoning or burns to the skin are acute injuries. Classically, however, the injury involved in toxic tort ligitation is a serious latent disease, such as cancer or birth defects, that may not develop until many years after the toxic exposure. In cases involving latent disease, there is virtually always a dispute over causation. The plaintiff has the difficult burden of providing that the disease resulted from the particular exposure, which may have occurred ten or twenty years earlier, rather than from some other cause (e.g., genetic inheritance, smoking, lack of exercise, diet, some other toxic exposure, or simply from unknown causes.) Courts can grant a variety of remedies in toxic tort cases that can benefit public health. For example, where toxic wastes leach from a disposal facility and contaminate a public water supply, a court can require the facility's owner to clean up the contamination, pay for an alternative safe water supply, and pay for medical care of anyone who develops disease from the contamination. Moreover, the desire to avoid tort liability may persuade facilities to exercise greater care to prevent the escape of toxic wastes. Toxic tort lawsuits are sometimes initiated soon after a toxic exposureespecially a mass exposureeven though the plaintiffs have no physical symptoms of disease. Plaintiffs have argued, without much success, that they should receive present compensation because the

exposure increases their risk of developing cancer in the future, and also for the emotional distress caused by their fear of future cancer. Courts have been more receptive to the argument that exposure victims should be compensated for the expense of periodic medical monitoring. Courts have reasoned that monitoring awards will foster early detection and treatment, which would help eliminate or mitigate future disease. There have also been many occupational toxic tort cases, because industrial and other workers are often chronically exposed to toxic chemicals - more so than consumers and residents. Thousands of toxic chemicals are used in industry and workers in these areas can experience a variety of toxic injuries. Unlike the general population, which is exposed to trace amounts of thousands of different chemicals in the environment, industrial workers are regularly exposed to much higher levels of chemicals and therefore have a greater risk of developing disease from particular chemical exposures than the general population. Toxic tort cases also arise when people are exposed to consumer products such as pesticides and suffer injury. One of the biggest examples of the mass toxic tort is the BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY incident. The age of mass tort arrived with BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY unveiling the environment.

BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY

On the night intervening 2nd and 3rd December, 1984, there occurred in Bhopal the most tragic industrial disaster in which thousands of persons lost their lives and lakhs of people suffered injuries of various kinds. On a clear night, with little wind and no rain expected, the worst nightmare was unleashed on the unsuspecting people of Bhopal. Workers, on the night shift in the plant detected a faint smell of boiled cabbage (associated with MIC), but they ignored it. What they did not know was that shoddy maintenance and poor safety precautions had meant that water was leaking into tank 410, carrying 40 tons of MIC, and a violent reaction was about to take place. When a few workers dared to venture out towards that tank, they felt the rumble under their feet and in a few moments, the tank burst out of its concrete casing and exploded, sending a deadly cloud of MIC into the air. The prevailing wind at ground level sent the cloud swirling across the surrounding slums and into the city of Bhopal.

This was the first time that an accident had occured in a Union carbide plant. In the Indian plant itself, one of the workers, Ranjit Singh, had died in 1981 of exposure to MIC when a few drops of it fell on his clothing and he removed his safety mask a little too early. Compensation was paid, the event was hushed up and there was little to indicate that this was more than an isolated aberration. However, in the 80s the plant started running at a loss due to diminishing demand for Sevin and hence was forced to cut back on costs. Unfortunately, the person responsible for cutting costs did not know the first thing about chemicals and ended up getting rid of all the safety mechanisms, including the all important flare to burn off any escaping MIC in case of a leak. Between 1981 and 1984, six such leaks were documented, but did not lead to any deaths, according to a subsequent report by the Madhya Pradesh government. In the American plant manufacturing 'Sevin' as well, over 28 such leaks were documented, but the information wasn't released for the fear of causing an uproar in the local community. The Bhopal plant, in 1984, had

ceased to conform to any international safety standards and Indian standards being non-existent, it continued to cut back on safety. Around 570,000 people were affected because of the incident. This massive figure includes approximately 5,000 who died instantly and several hundred thousand maimed for life, including children born with defects arising from the disaster. Such a large number almost matches, another tragedy - the bombing of Hiroshima at the end of World War II.

WHOM DID THE UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION BLAME ON AFTER THE TRAGEDY?
Instead of accepting responsibility and seeking to compensate the victims, UCC tried to pass the buck to everybody else and kept pushing responsibility away, in a bid to maintain a 'clean' image among its customers. It first blamed the Indian government for not having proper regulatory mechanisms, then blamed the employees of UCIL for not having taken proper care, and when these two did not work, it came up a mysterious sabotage theory, which to this day it sticks to, yet does not name any employee who allegedly committed this sabotage. The Bhopal gas tragedy also had several legal aspects to it, which are very interesting as well. The lawsuit against UCC, claiming damages for the victims was first filed in New York District Court. In the Bhopal litigation there was an embarrassing litigation brought by the Indian Legal system itself. It was the Rajiv Gandhi government who screwed up on Bhopal case. As the initial reports of pending flood of litigation claims started to trickle through, the Indian Government, fearing exploitation, and an opportunity to turn this into emotive, electoral issue, instantly passed a law prohibiting all but itself from representing the victims in any forum in the world. Then it went ahead and made a mockery of the move. It filed a suit in the district court of New York, USA. Before even the first papers had been filed, then the prime minister Rajiv Gandhi started making grandiose claims of a $2 billion compensation that his government would be seeking from Union Carbide Corporation. Any lawyer would connect this statement to the filing of the case in USA and ask the American court to dismiss the case since the Indian Government was forum shopping or in lay terms simply looking for the best bargain. To counter, the Indian government made an even more

stupid move. It claimed that the Indian judicial system was incompetent and inefficient to deal with the problem. Naturally no American court wanted to be stuck with an expensive, unending case on its hands and the district court of New York threw out the case. The Indian government cut a pretty sorry figure as it dragged itself to the district court of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh for the next round of litigation. Before the same judicial system and judges it claimed were incompetent and inefficient.7 This was upheld by the US Supreme Court as well and the case was finally filed in the Bhopal District Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh. While the Bhopal case was being argued in the High Court, the Supreme Court of India, in a separate poisonous gas leak case, came up with a new doctrine which could be used in the Bhopal case as well and that was absolute liability. The doctrine of absolute liability, which was laid down in the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India, where the leak of oleum gas had killed a few people near the factory, stated that any emissions from the premises of a factory or establishment engaged in the manufacture or storage of such harmful substances would make the owner of such establishment absolutely liable for any damage arising out of such escape. Unlike the previous doctrine of strict liability which governed damages arising out of such incidents, this doctrine allowed no defences whatsoever for such an incident and is similar to the "polluter pays" principle in environmental law in the US.

HISTORY OF UNION CARBIDE PLANT IN BHOPAL

There is an interesting history behind the setting up of the plant, and it is intricately linked to the 'Green Revolution' that was underway in India in the 70s. The increasing emphasis using highyield varieties of seeds and chemical fertilizers and pesticides, to ensure self-sufficiency in grain meant that India became a huge consumer of these products, leading to a severe shortage within the country itself. Foreign multinationals, such as Union Carbide, saw the massive potential to sell such pesticides and fertilizers to the country's 300 million or so farmers. One of these products was the 'miracle' pesticide 'Sevin' which, while not being as polluting as DDT, was equally effective against numerous kinds of pests, and hence was in great demand in many Third
7

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/mass_tort_litigation/2007/12/bhopal-revisite.html

World countries at that time, India being no exception. In the government of the day as well, Union Carbide's proposal to build the plant at Bhopal was welcomed and permission granted readily. Bhopal was chosen primarily because of its central location, good access to resources and easy communications with the rest of India. But instead of promoting Green Revolution in the country it devastated the country and totally changed the face of Bhopal.

The disaster at Bhopal, has everywhere become a synonym for industrial catastrophes and the hazards of 'development'.

TRIAL OF THE BHOPAL GAS INCIDENT

After a trial lasting more than two decades, the judgement on Bhopal Gas tragedy, pronounced as on 7th june 2010. Chief Judicial Magistrate Mohan P Tiwari pronounced the judgment after a 23-year-long trial .During the trial, a total of 178 prosecution witnesses were examined and 3008 documents were produced while eight defence witnesses deposed in the court. Out of the nine accused tried for the offences, R B Roy Choudhary, the then former Assistant Works Manager Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL), Mumbai died during the trial.

The remaining eight accused in the case are Keshub Mahendra, the then UCIL chairman, Vijay Gokhle, the then managing director, Kishore Kamdar, the then vice president, J Mukund, the then works manager, S P Choudhary, the then Production Manager, K V Shetty, the then plant superintendent, S I Quershi, the then production assistant of UCIL and UCIL Calcutta. The three accused -- the then chairman of Union Carbide Corporation of USA Warren Anderson, besides Union Carbide Corporation, USA and Union Carbide Eastern, Hong Kong -escaped the trial. FIR in the tragedy was filed on December 3, 1984 and the case was transferred to CBI on December 6, 1984. The CBI filed the charge sheet after investigation on December 1, 1987. The accused have been held guilty under sections 304-A (causing death by negligence), 336, 337 and 338 (gross negligence), and 35 (common intention) of the India Penal Code. They have also been fined under section 304-A (causing death by negligence), given imprisonment of three months and a fine of Rs250 under section 336, six months and Rs500 under section 337 and two years and Rs1,000 under section 338. The sentences will run concurrently. Eyebrows have been raised at the quantum of fine that chief judicial magistrate Mohan P Tiwari of the trial court in Bhopal has imposed. A lawyer said the court could have awarded exemplary fine on the accused and the delinquent company. There is no legal bar on awarding a hefty fine on the company and the accused. The CBI must challenge the judgment to raise the amount of fine, he said. WARREN ANDRESON, as the Union Carbide CEO at the time of the disaster, was charged with manslaughter in the Bhopal disaster case. He travelled to India with a promise from Indian authorities that he would not be arrested. However, authorities placed Anderson in custody. Anderson posted bail, returned to the US, and has refused to return to India. He was declared a fugitive from justice by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bhopal on February 1, 1992, for failing to appear at the court hearings in a culpable homicide case in which he was named the chief defendant. The chief judicial magistrate of Bhopal, Prakash Mohan Tiwari,

issued an arrest warrant for Anderson on July 31, 2009. The United States has declined to extradite him, citing a lack of evidence. In August 2009, a spokesman for Union Carbide said "Union Carbide had no role in operating the plant at the time as the factory was owned, managed and operated by employees of Union Carbide India Limited." Eight former senior employees of this subsidiary were found guilty on June 7, 2010. After these convictions, a Union Carbide spokesperson said, "All the appropriate people from UCIL -- officers and those who actually ran the plant on a daily basis -- have appeared to face charges." Indian government too seems to be in denial mode as far as bringing justice to those thousands of people affected by the tragedy. David Headley is being tried by all hooks and crook to be punished for his possible involvement in the killing of 200 people in 26/11 Mumbai terrorists attack but the main culprits of Bhopal Gas Tragedy or killer of more than 20,000 people are walking scot-free and government is not trying to bring those culprits to book of justice. Affected people are blaming the government that Anderson is a corporate tycoon and political parties gain financially to fight elections from businessmen. If they do not get justice, government intention will remain in questions. All this is happening before the government under different political parties. In these 26 years the Congress and the BJP have been in power in the state but have done nothing to bring those culprits to book of justice. Compensations have been insufficient to those survivors struggling for their lives because of killer diseases not to talk of the dead ones. Now, there is one more risky business waiting in to come into force. Nuclear plant has to be set up on Indian land on the line of Union Carbide. In case of mishap government has prepared nuclear liability bill. But many sections in our politics of society are against the current format of the compensations referred in the bill. On international standard too it lacks behind and does not meet the criterion. So, the question remains to be answered- is government going with the attitude couldnt care less?

Founder of Gas Pidit Mahila Udyog Sansthan Abdul Jabbar and an activist Satinath Sarangi also hailed the decision of the Supreme Court and expressed the hope that the justice would be delivered soon. While expressing happiness over CBIs initiative to approach the Supreme Court, S R Mohanty, the Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh government, said that CBI took it up and the Supreme Court had issued notice. This opens the possibility of meeting the ends of justice. Sunita Narain, Chairman of Centre for Science and Environment, said the apex courts decision has assured that we are on the road to justice. During the trial, 178 prosecution witnesses were examined and 3008 documents were exhibited.

GROUP OF MINISTERS Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has named Home Minister P. Chidambaram as head of the reconstituted high-level ministerial panel tasked with suggesting remedial measures to help victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, the worlds worst industrial disaster. The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), however, termed the prime ministers effort as an eyewash.

The other members of the group are Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad, Law Minister Veerappa Moily, Urban Development Minister S. Jaipal Reddy, Road Transport Minister Kamal Nath, Housing Minister Kumari Selja and Fertiliser Minister M.K. Azhagiri. The terms of reference of the group are to examine all issues relating to the Bhopal gas tragedy. The group will make appropriate recommendations on remedial measures that can be taken for rehabilitation of victims and their families, the official added. The Congress, meanwhile, said the government should make every effort to extradite Warren Anderson, who was the CEO of Union Carbide Corp when the Bhopal gas tragedy took place. A senior official of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said the government would decide on renewing a request to the US for extraditing Anderson, after getting additional evidence from investigating agencies on the Bhopal gas tragedy.8

THE RECEDING PROSPECTS OF JUSTICE FOR BHOPAL

What the country witnessed on 7th june was nothing less than a dam-bursts of public outrage, when eight individuals accused of responsibility for the Bhopal holocaust were each handed the derisory sentences of two years in prison. But if there was ever a miscarriage of justice foretold with absolute certainity, it was this. It was not 7th june 2010 when the die was cast, but 13th September 1996. There were several who were outraged then, but their voices were not heard. The matter remained cloaked in complex judicial reasoning, and the media, which on 7th june, worked itself up into a lather of moral outrage, had little inclination then to penetrate the fog of obfuscation. It was on 13th September 1996 that the Supreme Court overruled the findings of the all lower courts, disregarded the urgent pleadings of counsel for the Indian Government, and quashed the charges of culpable homicide and voluntarily causing bodily harm that had been brought by the prosecution. In place of these, the Supreme Court held, with an abundance of specious

http://www.answers.com/topic/toxic-tort

argumentation- well documented recently by Colin Gonsalves- that no more than a charge causing death by negligence could be laid.9 In the wake of this entirely predictable judicial disaster, the central government, which held the sole and exclusive power to litigate on behalf of the Bhopal victims, scrambled in the extreme haste to find a way to tackle nationwide indignation. A Group of Ministers (GoM, as stated above) was empowered to go into the verdict and its numerous ramifications and apply correctives where possible.

MISPLACED COMMENTARY
Media commentary, after a few cursory examinations of the grievances and still unhealed wounds of Bhopal, turned its attention to one person: Warren Anderson, chairman of the delinquent company, Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) at the time of the accident, now a nonagenarian living out his years of retirement in remote suburban United States(US). The angry swirl of public opinion then found a narrow and perhaps rather superfluous question on which to focus: who had permitted Anderson, soon after his arrest in India in the wake of the gas disaster, to leave the country on bail secured on a nominal bond of Rs 20,000? Lost in the entire forth was a simple question would it have served any purpose at all, if Anderson- like a typical Indian undertrail- been locked away years together, when the judicial process was compromised from its very start and the political will to pursue a complex litigation without sacrificing principle.

the Bhopal Catastrophe: Politics, Conspiracy and Betrayal, Economic and Political Weekly, 26 june 2010, pp 68-75.

th

THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE THAT NO INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY CAN BE BOTH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT IN THE SAME CASE, STANDS VIOLATED. BHOPAL HAS BEEN A GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE AND A GIGANTIC BREACHOF FAITH BY A GOVERNMENT THAT CLAIMED TO BE ACTING IN ITS CITIZENS BEST INTERESTS. BUT THESE PERHAPS WERE FORETOLDFROM THE TIME THAT THE GOVERNMENT, ACTING ON A WIDEAND AS IT TURN OUT, MISPLACED- NATIONALIST CONSENSUS, TOOK ON THE ONUS OF PURSUING THE BHOPAL LITIGATION, EFFECTIVELY EXTINGUISHING THE VICTIMS RIGHTS TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES.

LATEST NEWS ON THE CASE

GoM on Bhopal gas tragedy to meet on Monday New Delhi, Sep 26 : The Group of Ministers panel on 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy will meet here on Monday to assess the progress made since the GoM handed over its recommendations to the Union Cabinet three months ago. According to sources, the panel headed by Home Minister P Chidambaram will review the progress made by various ministries since June.

In June, the Union Cabinet had accepted all the 22 recommendations of the GoM and decided to push for extradition of former Union Carbide chief Warren Anderson and ascertain the liability of Dow Chemicals besides announcing a Rs 1265.56 crores package for relief and remediation. The CBI had on August 2 filed a curative petition in the Supreme Court seeking restoration of stringent charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against the accused in the 1984 Bhopal Gas tragedy case. The GoM constituted to examine all aspects of the Bhopal gas disaster, seeking Andersons extradition apart from measures to clean up the disaster site, had submitted the report to Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh on June 21. The GoM had dealt with all the issues compensation, legal issues, including the issue of the extradition of Warren Anderson, the legal options available to the Government of India, and most importantly, remediation matters, and health related matters. Union Carbide settled its liabilities to the Indian government in 1989 by paying 470 million dollars before being bought by another US company, Dow Chemical. The Government says around 3,500 died in one of Indias most horrific of industrial disasters. Rights activists, however, claim that 25,000 people have died so far. (ANI)10

CONCLUSION
JUSTICE IS AT A DEAD END FOR THE VICTIMS OF BHOPALS CHEMICAL HOLOCAUST. THE NEW POLITICAL COMMON SENSE IS THAT THIS IS THE OUTCOME OF AN INTRUSION BY THE JUDICIARY INTO AREAS IT HAD NO BUSINESS ENTERIN, AND A CONCURRENT ABDICATION OF RESPONSIBILTY BY THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATURE. THE GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN THE ONUS OF TIDYING UP THE MESS, BUT THIS JOB IS UNLIKELYTO BE EASY, GIVEN THAT IT NEEDSTHE JUDICIAL IMPRIMATUR AT EVERY STEP. IF IT PLAYS TRUE TO FORM, THE JUDICIARY IS IKELY

10

http://www.indiatalkies.com/2010/09/gom-bhopal-gas-tragedy-meet-monday.html

TO BE MORE CONCERNED WITH DEFENDING ITS DUBIOUS TRACK RECORD THAN WITH UPHOLDING THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE.