Bhopal Gas Tragedy Case Ss. 3,4 Exclusive The Government has been given exclusive right to represent the claimants in claims/suits filed against the multinational company. It cannot be said that the claimants have been deprived of right to sue the company. Ss. 3 & 4 of the Act does not violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. ] On this aspect, Shri Shanti Bhushan tried to urge before us that Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, inswofar as these enjoin and empower the Central Government to institute or prosecute proceedings was only an enabling provision for the Central Government and not depriving or disabling provisions for the victims. Ms. Jaising sought to urge in addition that in order to make the provisions constitutionally valid, we should eliminate the concept of exclusiveness to the Central Government and give the victims right to sue along with the Central Government. We are unable to accept these submissions. In our opinion, Sections 3 and 4 are categorical and clear. When the expression is explicit, the expression is conclusive, alike in what it says and in what it does not say. These give to the Central Government an exclusive right to act in place of the persons who are entitled to make claim or have already made claim. The expression 'exclusive' is explicit and significant. The exclusivity cannot be whittled down or watered down as suggested by counsel. The said expression must be given its full meaning and extent. This is corroborated by the use of the expression 'claim' for all purposes. If such duality of rights are given to the Central Government along with the victims in instituting or proceeding for the realization or the enforcement of the claims arising out of Bhopal gas leak disaster, then that would be so cumbersome that it would not be speedy, effective or equitable and would not be the best or more advantageous procedure for securing the claims arising out of the leakage. In that view of the matter and in view of the language used and the purpose intended to be achieved, we are unable to accept this aspect of the arguments advanced on behalf of the victims. It was then contended that by the procedure envisaged by the Act, the victims have been deprived and denied their rights and property to fight for compensation. The victims, it has been asserted, have been denied access to justice. It is a great deprivation, it was urged. It was contended that the procedure evolved under the Act for the victims is peculiar and having good deal of disadvantages for the victims. Such special disadvantageous procedure and treatment is unequal treatment, it was suggested. It was, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, that is the argument advanced. The Act does provide a special procedure in respect of the rights of the victims and to that extent the Central Government takes upon itself the rights of the victims. It is a special Act providing a special procedure for a kind of special class of victims. In view of the enormity of the disaster the victims of the Bhopal gas leak disaster, as they were placed against the multinational and a big Indian corporation and in view of the presence of foreign contingency lawyers to whom the victims were exposed, the claimants and victims can legitimately be described as a class by themselves different and distinct, sufficiently separate and identifiable to be entitled to special treatment for effective, speedy, equitable and best advantageous settlement of their claims. There indubitably is differentiation. But this differentiation is based on a principle which has rational nexus with the aim intended to be achieved by this differentiation. The disaster being unique in its character and in the recorded history of industrial disasters situated as the victims were against a mighty multinational with the presence of foreign contingency lawyers looming on the scene, in our opinion, there were sufficient grounds for such differentiation and different treatment. In treating the victims of the gas leak disaster differently and providing them a procedure, which was just, fair, reasonable and which was not unwarranted or unauthorized by the Constitution, Article 14 is not breached. (Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613 (688,689)