FACULTY OF LAW

2021-2022

LBH113: LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MV ACCIDENT AND

CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS

TOPIC: A Case Study of UCC Vs. UOI

(BHOPAL GAS LEAK DISASTER)

Submitted to Submitted by
Dr. K.S. BRIJWAL Amogh Srivastava
Professor, LLB (Hons),
Law School, BHU SEM - I, SEC-A,
Roll No.21225LLB037
 INDEX

1 Introduction
2 Processing and claim act 1985
3 Decision of court
4 Bhopal District Court
5 Appeal in high court and supreme court
6 Judgement of supreme court
7 MC Mehta Case was referred in deciding
this case
8 Conclusion
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION VS UNION OF
INDIA 1990 AIR 273,1989 SCC(2)540
Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India case , also called ‘The
Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster case’.

Introduction

Environment is a privilege provided to us to everyone residing on this

earth and it is everyone’s human right to enjoy a safe and healthy
environment and it is also everybody’s duty to work for it and
contributes towards its betterment. This case showed how our
functionaries were dealing with environment at that point of time.
This disaster is counted among the ‘world worst industrial disaster’

On night of December 2/3 1984, a mass disaster the worst in the

recent times, was caused by the leakage of methyl isocynate and
other toxic gases from a plant

 MIC is an extremely relative chemical and is used in product of

the insecticide carboryl.
 The scientific reason for the accident was that water entered
the tank where about 40 cubic meters of MIC was stored
 When water and MIC mixed an exothermic chemical reaction
started ,producing a lot of heat
 As a result the safety valve of the tank burst because of the
increase in pressure and gas leak from storage tank
  Deaths: at least 3787, over 1600 claimed
 Injuries: at least 558125

Processing and claim act 1985

Union of india immediately to provide speedy justice to victims

enacted Bhopal gas leak disaster act (processing and claim) 1985

The validity of this act was challenged in supreme court in union

carbide corporation vs. union of India. On the ground that union of
India was also owner of minority share holders

The court applying charanlal vs union of India ruled in favour of the

union of India and held the state is obligated to protect the interest
of his citizens across the globe.

Decision of court

The court held that our constitution makes it imperative for the state
to secure to all its citizens the rights guaranteed by the constitution
and where the citizens aren’t in a position to assert and secure their
rights, the state must come into picture and protect and fight for of
the citizens

However ,the union of India shockingly decided to litigate the case in

foreign courts instead of fighting it in Indian courts. The union of
India to support its stance of choosing American courts contended
the following

Indian legal system is not appropriate to entertain such a big a matter

including the flaws of substantial blockage in the cases
Both Indian lawyers and Indian law is well versed with the law of torts
therefore, due to gap in law it is probable that justice might not be
delivered district court of New York, USA.

Judge keenan at once dismissed the case on the ground of ‘forum

non conviniens’. The American court was of the view that all the
relevant evidences are within the jurisdiction of India, therefore, it
held that Indian court are better forum for this matter

Bhopal District Court

In September 1986, union of India initiated proceeding against union

carbide in Bhopal district court

The district court asked union carbide to deposit as sum of 350

million as interim compensation

Appeal in high court and supreme court

Union carbide corporation went into appeal in high court and the
court reduced the sum to 250 million

Finally union carbide corporation reached supreme court

Judgement of supreme court

The court held that on Feb 14 1989 to pay a hefty compensation of
470million us dollars before 31 march 1989.However,few months
later on May 4,1989 passed a reasoned ordered regarding the same
470 million us dollars, equivalent nearly RS 750 crores.
Class Number Compensation Amount of
of case per compensation
Head (crores)
(rupees)
1. Fatal cases 3000 1-3 lakhs 70

2. Permanent total or 30000 50k to 2 lakhs 250

partial disability
3. Temporary total or 20000 25k to 1 lakh 100
partial disability
4. Utmost severe Up to 4 lakh 80
injuries
5. Facilities for expert 25
medical attention
and rehabilitation
6. Claim for minor 225
injuries, personal
belongings, loss of
livestock, etc
TOTAL 750 crores

Therefore the legal validity of this settlement was challenged in union

Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India. The petitioners I this case
argued that the drop of criminal proceeding against union carbide
was illegal and the amount of compensation was inappropriate to the
injury the disaster caused. In the case the majority opinion was given
by justice Venkat Chaliah on behalf of himself and KN Singh. J and
N.D. Ojha J . While CJ Mishra concurred with him and Ahmadi J, wrote
the minority opinion.

The majority opinion directed that the quashing of criminal

proceeding against union carbide was not justified and held that the
criminal proceedings must be initiated.
On the point, whether such compensation is adequate or not, the
majority bench held that the said compensation is adequate.

On the point Ahmadi justice dissented with majority that when union
of India is not even remotely connected to the MIC leak in UCIL then
how it could be liable to pay the damages. In his opinion any
deficiency that may arise in rehabilitation of victims must be
tendered by Union Carbide as applying the formula of ‘Ryland vs.
fletcher’.

MC Mehta Case was referred in deciding this case

[M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 1037; (1987) 4
SCC 463. ]

The Oleum Gas Leak incident being similar in nature brought back the
horrors of the Bhopal gas disaster, as a large number of people
including both working people and the public were affected only after
one year of the Bhopal gas tragedy and was closely monitored as an
example as to how the courts should deal with companies
accountable for environmental disasters. The complicated legal
proceedings around the Bhopal Gas Tragedy is sadly an example of
what should not be done in this situation.

Oleum gas from Shriram Foods and Fertilizers which was a fertilizer
plant leaked causing harm to numerous people. The Ryland v.
Fletcher rule was applied in this case. J. Bhagwati stated that the
above rule has been 100 years old and is not enough to decide cases
such as these, as science has improved a lot in these years, which is
why the Supreme Court went a little further and implemented the
absolute liability rule.
Conclusion

 This is a lesson from which all the constitutional functionaries

should learn a strict lesson.
 The parliament must formulate such stringent law by the virtue
of which India becomes self-sufficient in resolving such matters
and not brag about its incomplete in international arena
 The executive should fell responsible to check such harmful
plants that whether they are complying with all safety measures
prescribe by the appropriate laws
 The judiciary should also understand when to deal with matter
liberally and when not.
 If the judiciary has in the first place awarded equitable
compensation the public exchequer of India shall not have
suffered.
 The case is not all about the rights of people, compensation and
economic losses but the case also brought in front of the entire
country the seriousness of environmental issues.
 The disasters like this and oleum gas leak had acted very
dangerously for the environment. In the present world of
technological development and industries the threat to the
environment is very expedient.
 As much this advancement is necessary for the development of
the society, there is an urgent need to focus attention towards
 environmental problems being posed by this development. As
each passing day we are bringing ourselves closer to the end of
the environment.
 Environment is a privilege provided to us to everyone residing
on this earth and it is everyone’s human right to enjoy a safe
and healthy environment and it is also everybody’s duty to work
for it and contributes towards its betterment.