The main legal point established in the judgment is the quasi-judicial nature of claim adjudication under the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and the availability of remedies for the gas victims.

Headnote:
Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sanghathan - Bhopal Gas Tragedy - Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, Charan lal Sahu v. Union of India, Krishna Mohan Shukla v. Union of India - The judgment discusses the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and the settlement between Union of India and Union Carbide. It highlights the legal provisions of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and the Scheme framed under the Act. The court emphasizes the quasi-judicial nature of claim adjudication, the availability of remedies, and the determination of compensation under the Scheme and Guidelines.
Fact of the Case:

The case relates to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy where the applicants sought reexamination of the inadequacy of the Bhopal Gas Settlement and compensation for the gas victims. The Union of India contested the applications, stating that the settlement had been approved by the court and the adequacy of compensation had been decided.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applications were not well-founded and cannot be allowed. It held that the issue of settlement and adequacy of compensation had already been decided by the court. The court emphasized the settlement amount and the number of death and injury cases as per the Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India & Others case.
Issues: The main issue was the reexamination of the inadequacy of the Bhopal Gas Settlement and the compensation for the gas victims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the previous settlement and the adequacy of compensation as determined by the court. It highlighted the legal provisions of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and the quasi-judicial nature of claim adjudication under the Scheme and Guidelines.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the interlocutory applications, stating that no case had been made out to issue any direction. It emphasized that the claimants should follow the appropriate steps as suggested by the court in previous cases.

Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sanghathan

JUDGEME

C.K. THAKKER, J.

1. The present two interlocutory applications ~re filed by the applicants, (i) Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sanghathan (BGPMUS for short) and (ii) Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahayog Samiti (BGPSSS for short) inter alia praying to reexamine the inadequacy of Bhopal Gas Settlement; to direct Union of India to compensate the Settlement Fund five times the initial fund; to order the Reserve Bank of India to provide detailed information on management and utilization of the Settlement Fund by rendering faithful accounts relating to withdrawal of funds by Welfare Commissioner; to command Welfare Commissioner, Bhopal to provide complete information regarding process of identification and categorization of gas victims and the manner of disbursement of compensation to them; to rectify the methodology in the process of identification and categorization of gas victims and the manner of disbursement of compensation of amounts by enhancing compensation appropriately.

2. The case relates to Bhopal Gas Tragedy. On December 2, 1984, there was a massive escape of lethal gas from a storage tank at Bhopal plant of the Union Carbide (India) Ltd. resulting in large scale of deaths, injuries to several persons and destruction of properties, livestock, etc. Several suits were filed for compensation and damages in different courts in India as also in the United States. Prosecution had also been launched. Ultimately, however, a settlement had been arrived at between the Union of India and the Union Carbide. The Union of India agreed to withdraw all cases and claims against the Union Carbide and its officers. For the said purpose, Parliament also enacted an Act known as the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (processing of Claims) Act, 1985 which empowered the Union of India to take over the conduct of all litigation in regard to claims arising out of gas disaster and to award compensation to the victims and affected persons.

3. According to the applicants, BGPMUS is an organization formed by the Bhopal Gas Victims in 1986. Likewise, BGPSSS is an association constituted in 1989 by a coalition of over 20 voluntary organizations of Scientists, Lawyers, Teachers, Artists, Journalists, Workers, Women, Students, Youths etc. The object of these two organizations is to support the struggle of the Bhopal Gas Victims for justice. Both the organizations have consistently championed the cause of Bhopal Gas Victims by seeking medical/economic/social relief and also payment of adequate compensation. It was stated in the applications that several steps were taken by the organizations so as to provide Bhopal Gas Victims and their families benefits to which they were entitled. Reference was made to various orders passed by this Court from time to time and it was stated that neither all eligible victims had been identified and ascertained nor adequate compensation had been paid to them. It was also alleged that though many persons lost their lives and several others injured, the number of cases in which compensation had been awarded under the head death (category 04) were very small. Likewise, compensation awarded to persons who sustained injury (category 01) were also showed to be less and several others had not been paid any amount whatsoever. It was asserted that the magnitude of the disaster in case of death as also injury was at least five times larger than what was assumed at the time settlement had been reached. It was, therefore, prayed that appropriate directions be issued so that all Bhopal Gas Victims may get compensation as gas victims/affected persons.

4. Notice was issued pursuant to which the respondents appeared. Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the Union of India contesting the applications. It was, inter alia, contended that the applications were based on assumptions, surmises and conjectures and on misreading of judgments of this Court. According to the respondents, the applicants are

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 656

The main legal point established in the judgment is the quasi-judicial nature of claim adjudication under the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 and the availability of remedies for the gas victims.

Cases Referred (4)