CASE ANALYSIS OF

CHARAN LAL SAHU VS. UNION OF INDIA

(1990 AIR 1480, 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 597)

BY
SHRISTI SAHU
SECOND YEAR LEARNER, B.B.A LLB
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)

www.probono-india.in

25thNovember 2020
INTRODUCTION
This case is a writ petition (petition no.268/89) filed by Shri Charan Lal Sahu.

The main question that had to be addressed in this case was, whether the Bhopal Gas Leak
Disaster (Processing of claims), 19851is constitutionally valid.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, the facts essentially emergefrom the horrendous incident of Bhopal gas leak
disaster from the Union Carbide (India) Ltd. Union Carbide Company (UCC) is a New York
based corporation. Its subsidiary Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL)was established in
India in 1954. It has its 50.99% of share holdings with Union Carbide Company and 22%
shareholdings with Life Insurance Corporation of India and Unit trust of India. A chemical
plant was operated by the Union Carbide (India) Ltd. For the production of pesticides with
the use of methyl isocyanate. Methyl isocyanate is extremely toxic gas. On the night of 3 rd
and 4th December. 1984 , there was a massive leakage of the methyl isocyanate gas from the
plant. This lead to death of nearly 3000 inhabitants of the city. There was disastrous effects
on the environment affecting the flora and fauna of the city. The effects of the disaster is said
to be persisting till date.

There were multiple suits filed on the behalf of the victims. All the suits were consolidated by
the Judge panel and brought before the Judge Kenaanat the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York. Eventually there was a shift from the U.S. Courts to the Indian courts
due to forum non conveniens, that is, lack of appropriate jurisdiction. The U.S. courts
considered Indian courts to be more suitable for the particular case.

Meanwhile, the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster ( Processing of claims) Act, 1985 was passed by
the Government of India. Through this act, the government wanted the claims arising out of
the Bhopal gas leak case to be dealt speedily, effectively and equitably.

Sh. Charan Lal Sahu was a practicing advocate in Bhopal High Court. The writ petition filed
by him is on the behalf of the victims as well as claims damages suffered by himself.
Through the writ petition, he wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the Bhopal Gas
Leak Disaster ( Processing of claims ) Act, 1985. He also wanted to challenge the settlement
entered under the Act.

1
Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of claims) Act [1985]; Act 21 of 1985
ISSUES OF THE CASE
1. Whether the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of claims) Act, 1984 is
constitutionally valid?
2. Whether settlement under the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of claims) Act is
violative of the principles of natural justice? Also whether the settlement is violative of
the fundamental rights of the petitioner and the victims.
3. Is the Union of India is acting as a judge in his own case?
4. Is the Union of India a joint tort feaser?

The case was decided by the Bench headed by Chief Justice SabyasachiMukharji. The rest of
the members of the bench were Justice K.N. Singh, Justice S. Ahmadi, JustcieK.N. Saikia.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE APELLANT SIDE

The petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of
claims) Act, 1984. The petitioner, ShCharan Lal Sahu contends that the Act is violative of the
fundamental rights enshrined in article 14, article 19 and article 21 of the Constitution of
India.

Secondly, the petitioner contends that the Act is violative of the principles of natural justice.
As the Central Government permitted the establishment of the factory, without the necessary
check of compliance with the safeguards; the petitioner considered the Government of India
as a joint tort-feaser. Adding to the fact, that the Central Government held 22% of shares of
the Union Carbide (India) Limited. Hence, the Government of India acted as a judge on his
own case according to the petitioner. Moreover, the principle of audialterem partem was
compromised, when the Act was passed without considering the views of the victims.

ARGUMENT FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE

As per Section 4 of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster, the victims can be represented by a legal
practioner of choice. Hence, respondent considered that there was no lacune in relation to the
matter of equal representation. Hence, it is not violative of article 14, right to equality and
equal protection of law.

The contentions in relation to violation of principles of natural justice, the respondent held
the view that there cannot be a straight-jacket formula to application of principles of natural
justice. Hence, a catalogue for principles of natural justice cannot be formulated. So the
respondent, held a view that the Central Government simply facilitated the proceedings and
did not adjudicate the case. So the Central Government cannot be labelled as ‘acting judge
on its own case’.

LEGAL ASPECTS
Article 14
Article 14 of the Constitution of India falls under the ambit of fundamental rights.Article 14
essentially facilitates equal opportunity by prohibiting discrimination based on gender, race,
caste, religion and place of birthto the people in the territory of India.

Article 19
Article 19 is a fundamental right as well. Article essentiallyprotects freedom of speech and
expression of the citizens of India. Article 19 through its various clauses protects the freedom
of speech and expression in the form of right toformation of associations and unions; right to
assemble without arms in a peaceably manner; move freely throughout the territory of India;
practise any profession or carry any trade, business; reside any part of India.

Article 21
Article 21 protects the life and personal liberty of the citizens of India. It elaborates as no
person shall be deprived of life and personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.

Section 4 of Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster ( Processing of claims) Act 1985

Section 4 of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of claims) Act 1985 gives the Central
Government the power to associate a legal practitioner of the claimant’s choice for conduct of
the suit or proceeding in relation to the suit. The expense of the service by the legal
practitioner will be borne by the claimant.

Section 3 of Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster ( Processing of claims) Act 1985

Section 3 of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of claims) Act 1985 consists of the
provisions which enables the Central Government represent claimants. This section of the
Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster ( Processing of claims) Act 1985 gives exclusive right to the
Central Government to act on behalf of claimant. This section also applies to the claims
retrospectively.

VIEWS OF THE COURT

The writ petitions by Sh. Charan Lal Sahu challenges the constitutionality of the Bhopal Gas
Leak Disaster (Processing of claims) Act, 1985 on the grounds, the Act being violative of
fundamental rights. The petitioner essentially contended that the Act is violative of Article
14, Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.In the response to the contentions
raised by the petitioner, the Court had the view that since the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster
(Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 provides a just, reasonable and fair procedure for the
treating the victims of the Bhopal gas disaster is does not violate the article on equality and
equal protection of law, that is, article 14 of the Constitution of India. In addition, the Court
also had the view that the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster(Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 was in
no way was unwarranted or unauthorised by the Constitution of India.

The Union of India owning 22% of the Union Carbide India Limited’s share, it becomes
judge in its own case. Thus, collectively the contentions of the petitioners proves to be
against the principles of natural justice.In analysing whether the Union of India has violated
the principles of natural justice by acting judge in its own case, the Court held the view that it
is not so in this case. The court called the act of the Central Government as the Act being
exercised within the sovereign power2. The court opined with the view that it is the supreme
power of the State to take steps to enhance the wealth and prosperity of the people by
improving the health, peace, morale, education and good order of its people3.The Supreme
Court also opined of the view that since the Central Government was only fighting and
advancing the claims of the victims, there is no scope of violation of principles of natural
justice4. After all, the adjudication is finally is done by the courts. In case, there is conflict of
interests between the victims and the Central Government, doctrine of necessity would
override the principles of natural justice5.

Other contention of the petitioner was that the victims were not given the opportunity of to be
heard, before the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act was passed. Thus passing of the Act, resulted
in suppressing the rights of victims and surrendering it to the State. Contentions of the
petitioner in relation to the principle of audi alteram partem, the court held the view that
audialterem partem is a principle which ensure power is not abused or misused. The Court
considered that if the rule of prior hearing is ruled out then the decision of bringing up the
statue excluded the rule of audialterem partem. Nonetheless, if a statue is silent regarding the

2
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, [1981] 2 SCR533
3
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation , [1985] Supp. 2 SCR51
4
Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR 621O
5
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, [1987] 1 SCR 819
rule of prior hearing before the statue comes into force, even post-decisional hearing can be
considered.

OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

On 17th December 1987, the District judge ordered an interim relief of Rs.350 crores. The
amount of interim relief was later reduced Rs. 250 crores due to a appeal by the Union
Carbide Company in the High Court.

Further, the Union Carbide appealed at the Supreme Court through special leave petition.
Leave was granted along with the order to pay 490 million US dollars to the Union of India in
full settlement of all liabilities arising out of Bhopal gas leak disaster.

The Court emphasised the Section 4 of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of claims)
Act, 1984, which sates that the victims has the right to be appointed with a legal practitioner
by the Government of India. Hence, the Court held that the question of under-representation
of the victims doesn’t come into picture. As the statue was silent in regard to the principle of
audialterem partem, the Apex Court held that the Central Government should have the views
of the victims in hand. These views should be necessarily represented in the Court by the
Central Government during adjudication process. In order to consolidate, the views of the
victims, the Central government should issue public notice with the title ‘Help of mass
media’.

The Court held that the fact that financial institutions hold shares in Union Carbide Company,
it does not stop the Central Government to act as parenspatraie and discharging its statutory
duties. Even the Government of India claimed that the suit was filed against Union Carbide
Company, so the Union Carbide (India) Limited was not a necessary party.

CONCLUSION
The apex court determined the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985
was constitutionally valid. The apex held a held the view that till the proceedings and
adjudication process continues and until the claims are obtained or realised from the
delinquents, that is, Union Carbide Company or Union Carbide India Limited; the interim
compensation to the victims is to be paid by the Central Government.

SUGGESTIONS
There is a general saying as‘Justice delayed is justice denied’.Although the settlement
brought about without prior notice is not justified. Even keeping the settlement at abeyance
and giving notice for post decisional would not be ideal either. Given the magnitude of
misery involved the, justice should be delivered at the earliest.

REFRENCES
 Charan Lal Sahu v Union of India1990 AIR 1480
 Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of claims) Act, 1984
 Collector of Customs, Madras v. NathellaSampathu Chetty[1962] 3 SCR 78
 Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs Union of India[1981] 2 SCR 533
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[1987] 1 SCR 819

BRIEF ABOUT THE AUTHOR

This article is written by Shristi Sahu, a second year learner at Symbiosis Law School,
NOIDA, a constituent of Symbiosis International (Deemed University). Constitutional Law,
environmental law, intellectual property law, jurisprudence are few legal subjects that
intrigues the author. Other than law school and allied work schedule, reading, journaling,
watching movies and spending time in the garden helps the author to spend time leisurely.