The Bhopal gas leak disaster case:
On the night of December 2-3, 1984, a mass disaster, the worst in the recent times, was caused by the leakage of Methyl Isocyanate (mic) and other toxic gases from a plant set up by the Union Carbide India Ltd. (UCIL) for the manufacture of pesticides etc., in Bhopal. UCIL is a subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), a multinational company, registered in U.S.A.
The disaster resulted in the death of at least 3000 persons and serious injuries to a very large number of others (estimated to be over 6 lacs). Permanently affecting their eyes, respiratory system and causing scores of other complications, including damage to the fetus of the pregnant women.
The peculiar problem regarding the claim of compensation was involved because of such a large number of victims, most of those belonging to the lower economic strata. On behalf of the victims, a large number of cases were filed in Bhopal, and also in U.S.A against the UCC. There was an effort for court settlement between the Government of India then proclaimed an Ordinance, and thereafter passed "The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985.
In pursuance of the power conferred on it under Section 3, of the Act confers an exclusive right on the Central Government to represent and act in place of every person who has made a claim or is entitled to make a claim arising out of or connected with the Bhopal gas leak disaster. Empowered by Section 9 of the Act, the Government of India also framed "The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Scheme, 1985. In pursuance of the power conferred on it under Section 3 the Union of India filed a suit on behalf of all the claimants, against the UCC in the United States District Court of New York. All the suits earlier filed in U.S.A. by some American lawyers were superseded and consolidated in this action. The UCC pleaded for the dismissal of the suit on the grounds of forum non conveniens, i.e. the suit can be more conveniently tried in India, as apart from many other factor, India was the place of the catastrophe and the plant personnel, victims, witnesses, documentary and all related evidence were located there. The Union of India, However, maintained that the Indian judiciary has yet to reach maturity due ti restraints placed upon it due to the British rule and the Indian Courts are not up to the task of conducting the said litigation Judge Keenon accepted the plea of forum non conveniens put forward by UCC, rejected the plea of the Union of India and dismissed the Indian action on that ground. After the dismissal of the suit in U.S.A in the Union of India filed a suit in the District Court of Bhopal. The District and Session Judge M.W. Deo ordered the UCC to pay an interim relief of Rs.350 crore to the gas victims. On a Civil revision petition filed by the U.C.C. in the Madhya Pradesh High Court against the order of the Bhopal District Court Mr. Justice S.K. Seth reduced the quantum of "interim compensation" payable from Rs. 350 crore to Rs. 250 Crore. On the one hand, the UCC was reported to have decided to go in appeal against the decision requiring it to pay interim compensation, it had simultaneously devised a new strategy of out maneuvering the Indian Government by a direct settlement with settlement, on a prayer by Union of India, the District and Session Court Judge, Bhopal Mr. M.W. Deo passed an interim order directing the UCC not to make any settlement or compromise with any individual until further orders. "There were reports that the UCC was also trying to negotiate with the Union of India for an out of court Settlement"
So far as the legal position of the case is concerned, recently in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, liability laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher. The UCC, therefore could not escape the liability on the ground of sabotage, which it was trying to plead as a defense which is permitted under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.
