You are on page 1of 14

LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS

BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY-1984


FMG-17 Section B

Prof. K. L. Chawla

Submitted to:

Submitted by:

Sarita Motwani Shailunder Koul Shalini Hasija Shashwat Misra Shruti Aggarwal Soumitra Kandpal

Group 9

81111 81112 81113 81114 81115 81116

Bhopal Gas Tragedy-1984

FORE School of Management

Page 1

Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Legal Issues


Union Carbide Ltd.
The Union Carbide India, Limited (UCIL) factory was established in 1969 near Bhopal. 50,9 % was owned by Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) and 49,1 % by various Indian investors, including public sector financial institutions. It produced the pesticide carbaryl. In 1979 a methyl isocyanate (MIC) production plant was added to the site. MIC, an intermediate in carbaryl manufacture, was used instead of less hazardous but more expensive materials. UCC understood the properties of MIC and how to handle it. The Leakage On the night of December 2, 1984, during routine maintenance operations at the MIC plant, at about 9.30 p.m., a large quantity of water entered storage tank no. 610 containing over 40 tons of MIC. This triggered off a reaction, resulting in a tremendous increase of temperature and pressure in the tank. 40 tonnes of MIC, along with Hydrogen Cyanide and other reaction products burst past the ruptured disc into the night air of Bhopal at around 12.30 a.m. Safety systems were grossly under-designed and inoperative. Senior factory officials knew of the lethal build-up in the tank at least one hour before the leakage, yet the siren to warn neighbourhood communities was sounded more than one hour after the leak started. By then, the poisonous gases had covered an area of 40 sq.kms. killing thousands of people. Over 500 thousand experienced acute breathlessness, pain in the eyes, and vomiting as they inhaled the deadly vapours. They ran in panic to get away from the poisonous cloud that hung close to the ground for more than four hours. When people poured into hospitals by thousands, their eyes and lungs in burning, choking agony, the doctors called up the plant medical officer to find out what they ought to do. Dr Loya, UCIL's official doctor in Bhopal replied, "It is not a deadly gas, just irritating, a sort of tear gas." Previous Warnings A series of prior warnings and MIC-related accidents had occurred:

In 1976, the two trade unions reacted because of pollution within the plant. In 1981, a worker was splashed with phosgene. In panic he ripped off his mask, thus inhaling a large amount of phosgene gas; he died 72 hours later In January 1982, there was a phosgene leak, when 24 workers were exposed and had to be admitted to hospital. None of the workers had been ordered to wear protective masks. In February 1982, an MIC leak affected 18 workers. In August 1982, a chemical engineer came into contact with liquid MIC, resulting in burns over 30 percent of his body.
Page 2

Bhopal Gas Tragedy-1984

In October 1982, there was a leak of MIC, methylcarbaryl chloride, chloroform and hydrochloric acid. In attempting to stop the leak, the MIC supervisor suffered intensive chemical burns and two other workers were severely exposed to the gases. During 1983 and 1984, leaks of the following substances regularly took place in the MIC plant: MIC, chlorine, monomethylamine, phosgene, and carbon tetrachloride, sometimes in combination. Reports issued months before the incident by scientists within the Union Carbide corporation warned of the possibility of an accident almost identical to that which occurred in Bhopal. The reports were ignored and never reached senior staff. Union Carbide was warned by American experts who visited the plant after 1981 of the potential of a "runaway reaction" in the MIC storage tank; local Indian authorities warned the company of problems on several occasions from 1979 onwards. Again, these warnings were not heeded.

After Effects Short term

Apart from MIC, the gas cloud may have contained phosgene, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, oxides of nitrogen, monomethyl amine (MMA) and carbon dioxide, either produced in the storage tank or in the atmosphere. The gas cloud composed mainly of materials denser than the surrounding air, stayed close to the ground and spread outwards through the surrounding community. The initial effects of exposure were coughing, vomiting, severe eye irritation and a feeling of suffocation. People awakened by these symptoms fled away from the plant. Those who ran inhaled more than those who had a vehicle to ride. Owing to their height, children and other people of shorter stature inhaled higher concentrations. Many people were trampled trying to escape. Thousands of people had succumbed by the morning hours. There were mass funerals and mass cremations as well as disposal of bodies in the Narmada river. 170,000 people were treated at hospitals and temporary dispensaries. 2,000 buffalo, goats, and other animals were collected and buried. Within a few days, leaves on trees yellowed and fell off. Supplies, including food, became scarce owing to suppliers' safety fears. Fishing was prohibited as well, which caused further supply shortages. A total of 36 wards were marked by the authorities as being "gas affected", affecting a population of 520,000. Of these, 200,000 were below 15 years of age, and 3,000 were pregnant women. In 1991, 3,928 deaths had been certified. Independent organizations recorded 8,000 dead in the first days. Other estimations vary between 10,000 and
Page 3

Bhopal Gas Tragedy-1984

30,000. Another 100,000 to 200,000 people are estimated to have permanent injuries of different degrees.

The acute symptoms were burning in the respiratory tract and eyes, blepharospasm, breathlessness, stomach pains and vomiting. The causes of deaths were choking, reflexogenic-circulatory collapse and pulmonary oedema. Findings during autopsies revealed changes not only in the lungs but also cerebral oedema, tubular necrosis of the kidneys, fatty degeneration of the liver and necrotising enteritis. The stillbirth rate increased by up to 300% and neonatal mortality rate by 200 %.

Long term

It is estimated that 20,000 have died since the accident from gas-related diseases. Another 100,000 to 200,000 people are estimated to have permanent injuries. The quality of the epidemiological and clinical research varies. Reported and studied symptoms are eye problems, respiratory difficulties, immune and neurological disorders, cardiac failure secondary to lung injury, female reproductive difficulties, and birth defects among children born to affected women. Other symptoms and diseases are often ascribed to the gas exposure, but there is no good research supporting this. There is a clinic established by a group of survivors and activists known as Sambhavna. Sambhavna is the only clinic that will treat anybody affected by the gas, or the subsequent water poisoning, and treats the condition with a combination of Western and traditional Indian medicines, and has performed extensive research. Union Carbide as well as the Indian Government long denied permanent injuries by MIC and the other gases. In January, 1994, the International Medical Commission on Bhopal (IMCB) visited Bhopal to investigate the health status among the survivors as well as the health care system and the socio-economic rehabilitation.

Post the Tragedy Within months after the disaster, the GoI issued an ordinance appointing itself as the sole representative of the victims for any legal dealings with UCC as regards compensation. The ordinance was later replaced by the Bhopal Gas Leak (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985. Armed with this power, the GoI filed its suit for compensation and damages against UCC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Besides filing the suit, one of its prime responsibilities was to register the claims of each and every gas victim in Bhopal. Analysts felt that this job was never done, or rather, not with any seriousness for the next ten years. The government set up various inquiry commissions to investigate the causes of the disaster; they remained half-hearted initiatives at best. UCC, on the other hand, moved more quickly with its 'investigations': it announced by March 1985 that the disaster was due to 'an act of sabotage' by a Sikh terrorist. Then they shifted blame to a disgruntled worker.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy-1984 Page 4

In May 1986, Judge J.F. Keenan ruled that India and not the US was the appropriate forum for the Bhopal compensation litigation. In the first pre trial hearing in the consolidated Bhopal litigation in US federal courts, John F Keenan, asked UCC as 'a matter of fundamental human decency' to provide an interim relief payment of $5 - 10 million. UCC agreed to provide $5 million, provided a satisfactory plan of distribution and accounting of the funds was devised. For 8 months, the UCC and the GoI haggled over terms of reference and conditions for using the $5 million interim relief.

Finally, in November 1986, the parties agreed to channel the money through the American Red Cross to the Indian Red Cross. Even after one year of the tragedy, no one-not even the official of the MP Government in charge of relief for the victims-had any idea what the Red Cross would do with the money. On December 17, 1987, a Bhopal District Court Judge passed an order directing UCC to pay Rs. 3.5 billion as interim relief. UCC challenged this order in the MP high court (at Jabalpur) on the grounds that the trial judge was not authorised to pass the order under any provisions of the Indian Civil Penal Code. On April 4, Justice S. K. Seth of the High Court upheld the liability of UCC for the Bhopal disaster, but reduced the interim compensation to Rs 2.5 billion. UCC appealed to the Supreme Court of India against the High Court order saying "No court that we know of in India or elsewhere in the world has previously ordered interim compensation where there is no proof of damages or where liability is strongly contested." On February 14, 1989, the Supreme Court directed UCC to pay up US $ 470 million in "full and final settlement" of all claims, rights, and liabilities arising out of the disaster. The Supreme Court of India ruled that the $470 million settlement was "just, equitable and reasonable."

UCC described the court's decision as fair and reasonable, and the company's stock soared in the London market. Analysts felt that the Bhopal Gas disaster, which left thousands of people dead and injured, was settled for a mere US $ 470 million-which worked out to around Rs. 10,000 per victim (if it was divided equally). In the same year, a leading national daily stated that approximately US $ 40,000 was spent on the rehabilitation of every sea otter affected by the Alaska oil spill. Each sea otter was given rations of lobsters costing US $ 500 per day. Thus the life of an Indian citizen in Bhopal was clearly much cheaper than that of a sea otter in America. In 1991, the Bhopal court summoned Warren Anderson to appear on a charge of 'homicide in a criminal case.' However, he did not turn up. On September 9, 1993, UCC sold its entire 50.9% stake in UCIL to the Calcutta based Mc Leod Russell India Ltd., a company of the B M Khaitan Group. Till 2000, attempts to serve a summon on Warren Anderson by victims' organizations in the Federal Court on Southern district of New York have been unsuccessful. Kenneth McCallion, who was the lawyer for some of the victims and their family members, said a private
Bhopal Gas Tragedy-1984 Page 5

investigator also hired to deliver the summons at Anderson's residences in Vero Beach, Florida, and Manhattan and Long Island in New York was unable to locate him. Asked if he believed Warren Anderson had gone into hiding to avoid the summons, McCallion said, "We are just surprised we have been unable to find him, a former CEO of a major corporation." He observed, "And there is also a legal process which has been issued by the courts in India for him to appear in Bhopal district court to answer criminal charges and those attempts to serve him... have been unsuccessful as well.

In 2001, in their book, It was five past midnight in Bhopal, Dominique Lapierre and Javier Moro wrote that bringing UCC to justice was unlikely because UCC had been sold out. In August 1999, Dow Chemical purchased UCC for US$ 9.3 billion.

After effects: Are we prepared for another Bhopal?


The Bhopal Gas leak and the disaster that ensued raise a series of questions regarding industrial safety, risk, compensation and relief for victims of industrial disasters, multinational enterprises and liability, regulation of the transfer and use of hazardous technology. Internal documents that came to light during the discovery process in the US courts in the contamination case over the last few years clearly indicate that UCC: a. Transferred unproven technology to UCIL. b. Did everything it could to ensure that it maintained a majority stake of over 50% in UCIL. c. Was aware of the possibility of a potential runaway reaction that triggered the MIC leak in Bhopal. d. Had lower safety standards in place in Bhopal than it had in USA. e. Was aware from 1982 that the Bhopal plant suffered from serious safety problems. Even as UCCs responsibility for the accident is well established, there is no doubt that the Governments of India and Madhya Pradesh too have to accept their share of responsibility for not regulating the safety of the plant. Between the late 1970s and 1984 there were several accidents in Bhopal plant, including the death of a worker due to phosgene gas leak. It is also significant to note that while the GOI was allowing industries employing hazardous substances, technology and processes to operate, no attempt was made to develop appropriate regulatory framework to govern the safety and risk of such industries. Further little attention was paid for enhancing capacities of bodies responsible for industrial safety to actually monitor hazardous industries. Following the Bhopal Gas Leak, the Factories Act 1948 was amended. This included: The acknowledgement that the impact of accidents and disasters was increasingly likely to spill beyond the boundaries of factories, affecting the general public in the vicinity of the factory
Page 6

Bhopal Gas Tragedy-1984

Information regarding potential disasters should be communicated to the local authority and those in the vicinity of the factory; this should include information on what may be done to mitigate harm in the event of a disaster. A Site Appraisal Committee be established to decide on matters of safety and hazard every time a new factory is set up, or an old one expanded Workers right to participate in safety management, including the right to obtain information from the occupier relating to workers health and safety at work; To get trained in matters relating to workers health and safety at work; To represent to the inspector of factories or their representative when there is inadequate provision for protection of health and safety in the factory.

A new chapter on Hazardous Industries was added in 1987. This amendment also incorporated some of the Supreme Court pronouncements on industrial safety made in context of an oleum gas leak in Delhi in 1986. The amendments essentially focussed on ensuring that information regarding potential risks and hazards are made available to local authorities and communicated to the vicinities of the plants and that workers have a right to participate in safety management and regulation of the location. The 1987 amendments also redefined the occupier (the person designated to be responsible for the affairs of the factory-specifically safety in the present context) to be one of the Directors and explicitly laid down that the occupier has an obligation to show, in the event of an accident, that due diligence had been exercised to enforce the safety obligations laid down in the Act. In 1991, India enacted the Public Liability Insurance Act (PLIA) to provide for interim compensation on a no-fault basis. In 1995 the National Environment Tribunal Act was enacted to set up tribunals to deal exclusively with the determination and disbursement of compensation. Criminal conduct The law governing criminal conduct, of omission and commission, by corporations and corporate directors and managers, has not evolved significantly. There has, in fact, been a certain regression that set in with the decision of the Supreme Court in Keshub Mahindra v State of Madhya Pradesh (1996), where the court reduced the charges in connection with the Bhopal gas disaster from culpable homicide to rash and negligent conduct. The knowledge of the harm likely to be caused by their conduct as corporate managers, and their intention, was watered down even before it could be judicially established whether the decisions made by them, and the practices they adopted in operating and maintaining the plant, could be considered to constitute criminal conduct. Given the number of people dead, disabled and harmed by the disaster, and the allegations of design defect, malfunctioning, reduced allocation of resources in matters of safety, and disinformation that followed on the heels of the disaster, the assumptions that underlie this change in the law are not easy to explain.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy-1984 Page 7

Yet, even as the Union of India was arguing in court for UCC to be held responsible for design defects and non-use of the information that the UCC had on matters of safety of the plant, Parliament amended the Factories Act, 1948. In 1987, without any public debate, Parliament legislated to absolve the designer, manufacturer, importer or seller of plant and machinery after the user to whom the plant and machinery were handed over gave an undertaking that, if properly used, no harm would ensue. Seen in the context of Bhopal, had this amendment been in place before the disaster, Union Carbide Corporation could not have been held liable for the disaster. Rather, Union Carbide India Ltd would be solely responsible. This was a strange provision introduced into the law, providing a pre-judgment of culpability. And this, in a law that had nothing to do with contracts and liability, but with standards being maintained at the workplace. Industrial secrecy The law has, for some time now, been protective of the right against disclosure in matters connected with industry. In the Factories Act 1948 (S.91), an Inspector of Factories is authorised to take samples of any substances used, or intended to be used, in the factory, where there is reason to believe that it is being used in contravention of the Act, or if in the opinion of the inspector (it is) likely to cause bodily injury to, or injury to the health of, workers in the factory. Once tested, and found to constitute evidence that an offence under the Factories Act has been committed, a prosecution may be launched. But disclosing the results of the analysis otherwise would be a wrong, punishable with imprisonment for a term extending up to six months or with fine upto Rs 10,000 or both. It is interesting that even as disclosure of information was prescribed in Chapter IV A of the Factories Act in 1987 as being a necessary aspect of safety and preparedness for hazards, the punishment for disclosure of the results from analysing samples was actually increased from three to six months imprisonment, and fine from Rs 500 to Rs 10,000. There is a further provision that has survived the Bhopal gas disaster which places restrictions on the disclosure of information. No inspector shall, S.118 reads, while in service or after leaving the service, disclose otherwise than in connection or execution, or for the purposes of this Act, any information relating to any manufacturing or commercial business or any working process which may come to his knowledge in the course of his official duties, unless it is with the written consent of the owner of the business, or it is for the purposes of legal proceedings. An inspector breaching this injunction may be punished with up to six months imprisonment, or with fine up to Rs 1,000 or both. It is the right against disclosure that informs the mood in this provision. It is striking that there is no provision that has been considered to make punishable the non-disclosure of all the information that is in the possession of the owner which may help in mitigating the effects of the disaster. The emphasis on industrial secrecy and the enforced silences rest uneasily with the dire need for disclosure and of information-sharing witnessed in the days, months and years following the Bhopal Gas Disaster.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy-1984 Page 8

APPENDIX I
BHOPAL GAS LEAK DISASTER (PROCESSING OF CLAIMS) ACT 1985 ACT NO. 21 OF 1985 [29th March, 1985.]

An Act to confer certain powers on the Central Government to secure that claims arising out of, or connected with, the Bhopal gas leak disaster are dealt with speedily, effectively, equitably and to the best advantage of the claimants and for matters incidental thereto. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty-sixth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-Short title and commencement. 1. Short title and commencement. (1) This Act may be called the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985. (2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 20th day of February, 1985. Definitions. 2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (a) "Bhopal gas leak disaster" or "disaster" means the occurrence on the 2nd and 3rd days of December, 1984, which involved the release of highly noxious and abnormally dangerous gas from a plant in Bhopal (being a plant of the Union Carbide India Limited, a subsidiary of the Union Carbide Corporation, U.S.A.) and which resulted in loss of life and damage to property on an extensive scale; (b) "claim" means-- (i) a claim, arising out of, or connected with, the disaster, for compensation or damages for any loss of life or personal injury which has been, or is likely to be, suffered; (ii) a claim, arising out of, or connected with, the disaster, for any damage to property which has been, or is likely to be, sustained; (iii) a claim for expenses incurred or required to be incurred for containing the disaster or mitigating or otherwise coping with the effects of the disaster; 90 (iv) any other claim (including any claim by way of loss of business or employment) arising out of, or connected with, the disaster; (c) "claimant" means a person entitled to make a claim; (d) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner appointed under section 6; (e) "person" includes the Government; (f) "Scheme" means a Scheme framed under section 9. Explanation.--For the purposes of clauses (b) and (c), where the death of a person has taken place as a result of the disaster, the claim for compensation or damages for the death of such person shall be for the benefit of the spouse, children (including a child in the womb) and other heirs of the deceased and they shall be deemed to be the claimants in respect thereof. Power of Central Government to represent claimants. 3. Power of Central Government to represent claimants. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Central Government shall, and shall have the exclusive right to, represent, and act in place of (whether within or outside India) every person who has made, or is entitled to make, a claim for all purposes connected with such claim in the same manner and to the same effect as such person. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the
Bhopal Gas Tragedy-1984 Page 9

provisions of sub-section (1), the purposes referred to therein include-- (a) institution of any suit or other proceeding in or before any court or other authority (whether within or outside India) or withdrawal of any such suit or other proceeding, and (b) entering into a compromise. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply also in relation to claims in respect of which suits or other proceedings have been instituted in or before any court or other authority (whether within or outside India) before the commencement of this Act: Provided that in the case of any such suit or other proceeding with respect to any claim pending immediately before the commencement of this Act in or before any court or other authority outside India, the Central Government shall represent, and act in place of, or along with, such claimant, if such court or other authority so permits. Claimant's right to be represented by a legal practition, Power ofCentral Government. 4. Claimant's right to be represented by a legal practition, Power of Central Government. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 3, in representing, and acting in place of, any person in relation to any claim, the Central Government shall have due regard to any matters which such person may require to be urged with respect to his claim and shall, if such person so desires, permit at the expense of such person, a legal practitioner of his choice to be associated in the conduct of any suit or other proceeding relating to his claim. 91 Power of Central Government. 5. Power of Central Government. (1) For the purpose of discharging its functions under this Act, the Central Government shall have the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908.) in respect of the following matters, namely:-(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; (f) any other matter which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. (2) Every notification made under clause (f) of sub-section (1) shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification or both Houses agree that the notification should not be made, the notification shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that notification. Commissioner and other officers and employees.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy-1984 Page 10

6. Commissioner and other officers and employees. (1) For the purpose of assisting it in discharging its functions under this Act, the Central Government may appoint an officer, to be known as the Commissioner for the welfare of the victims of the Bhopal gas leak disaster, and such other officers and employees to assist him as that Government may deem fit. (2) The Commissioner shall discharge such functions as may be assigned to him by the Scheme. (3) The Commissioner and such of the officers subordinate to him as may be authorised by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf may, for the discharge of their functions under the Scheme, exercise all or any of the powers which the Central Government may exercise under section 5. (4) All officers and authorities of the Government shall act in aid of the Commissioner. 1*(5) The Commissioner and the officers subordinate to him author- ised to discharge functions under the scheme shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the code of criminal procedure, 1973. Power to delegate. 7. Power to delegate. The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, delegate, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in the notification, all or any of its powers under this Act (excepting the power under section 9 to frame a Scheme) to the Government of Madhya Pradesh or an officer of the Central Government not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government or an officer of the Government of Madhya Pradesh not below the rank of a Secretary to that Government. 2*[ or the Commmissinor] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Ins. by Act 24 of 1992, s. 2. 2. Ins. by s. 3 ibid. 92 In computing; under the Limitation Act. 8. (1) In computing; under the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963.) or any other law for the time being in force, the period of limitation for the purpose of instituting a suit or other proceeding for the enforcement of a claim, any period after the date on which such claim is registered under, and in accordance with, the provisions of the Scheme shall be excluded. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to any proceedings by way of appeal. Power to frame a Scheme. 9. Power to frame a Scheme. (1) The Central Government shall, for carrying into effect the purposes of this Act, frame by notification in the Official Gazette a Scheme as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), a Scheme may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-- (a) the registration of the claims under the Scheme and all matters connected with such registration; (b) the processing of the claims for securing their enforcement and matters
Bhopal Gas Tragedy-1984 Page 11

connected therewith; (c) the maintenance of records and registers in respect of the claims; (d) the creation of a fund for meeting expenses in connection with the administration of the Scheme and of the provisions of this Act; (e) the amounts which the Central Government may, after due appropriation made by Parliament by law in that behalf, credit to the fund referred to in clause (d) and any other amounts which may be credited to such fund; (f) the utilisation, by way of disbursal (including apportionment) or otherwise, of any amounts received in satisfaction of the claims; (g) the officer (being a judicial officer of a rank not lower than that of a District Judge) who may make such disbursal or apportionment in the event of a dispute; (h) the maintenance and audit of accounts with respect to the amounts referred to in clauses (e) and (f); (i) the functions of the Commissioner and other officers and employees appointed under section 6. (3) Every Scheme framed under sub-section (1) shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is framed, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the Scheme or both Houses agree that the Scheme should not be framed, the Scheme shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that Scheme. 93 Removal of doubts. 10. Removal of doubts. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that-- (a) any sums paid by the Government to a claimant otherwise than by way of disbursal of the compensation or damages received as a result of the adjudication or settlement of his claim by a court or other authority, shall be deemed to be without prejudice to the adjudication or settlement by such court or other authority of his claim to receive compensation or damages in satisfaction of his claim and shall not be taken into account by such court or other authority in determining the amount of compensation or damages to which he may be entitled in satisfaction of his claim; (b) in disbursing under the Scheme the amount received by way of compensation or damages in satisfaction of a claim as a result of the adjudication or settlement of the claim by a court or other authority, deduction shall be made from such amount of the sums, if any, paid to the claimant by the Government before the disbursal of such amount. Overriding effect. 11. Overriding effect. The provisions of this Act and of any Scheme framed thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act. Repeal and saving. 12. Repeal and saving. (1) The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Ordinance, 1985 (1 of 1985), is hereby repealed.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy-1984 Page 12

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said Ordinance shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy-1984

Page 13

REFERENCES
Environmental Issues in India by Mahesh Rangarajan, page 350. The Law 20 years After: Significant Absences by Usha Ramachandran, accessed at www.

infochangeindia.org on 23rd November 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster accessed on 24th November 2009 th http://www.commonlii.org/in/legis/num_act/bgldoca1985390 accessed 24 November 2009 http://www.bhopal.com/chrono.htm accessed on 24th November 2009

Bhopal Gas Tragedy-1984

Page 14