UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY STUDIES

COLLEGE OF LEGAL STUDIES

DEHRADUN

LEGAL METHOD AND LEGAL REASONONG

MASS TORT: BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY

SUBMITTED TO - SUBMITTED BY -

Ms. Shikha Dimri 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
G.Williams, The aims of the Law of Torts, (1951) 4 Current Legal Problems, 137.
2
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

3
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 their 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.

6
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 high-
yield 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

8
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.

9
the Bhopal Catastrophe: Politics, Conspiracy and Betrayal, Economic and Political Weekly, 26 th june 2010, pp
68-75.
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 WIDE-
AND 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.