This is an important case analysis on environment law. we have had such incidents in Delhi and recently in Vishakapatnam. this is an incident that changed the lives of many people. The supreme court of India recognized the need for supporting the victims and compensating them.
CASE NAME– Union Carbite Corporation v. UOI.
CITATION- 1990 AIR 273, 1989 SCC (2) 540
BENCH – R S Pathak, (CJ), Venkataramiah E S, , M N Venkatachalalliah, Ranganath Misra, N D Ojha.
FACTS-
Union Carbite Corporation India Ltd. manufactured batteries, chemicals, and other similar products in their manufacturing unit in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. This was set up in the year 1970. On the night of 2nd December, Methyl Isocyanate is a poisonous gas that leaked from the plant. This effected more than 800000 people in total. The government of India enacted The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act,1985 to give an easy was of presentation of the victims by invoking the doctrine of Parens Paraie.
ISSUES-
- Whether tort was committed by the defendant?
- Whether UCC can be criminally held liable?
ARRGUMENTS OF BOTH PARTIES
The central government filed a complaint before the southern district court in New York saying that the Indian judiciary will not be able to handle such a complex issue because of lack of expertise in the law of torts. It was also said that the delay in Indian judicial proceedings will delay the justice. The jurisdiction was refused by the court saying that there can be a more appropriate court to handle this issue.
Later the central government filed a case against the corporation in the district court of Bhopal. The court said that 350 crore rupees must be given by the UCC in compensation to the damages caused to the victims. The respondents appealed to the high court of Madhya Pradesh and the compensation was reduced to 250 crore rupees. The UCC filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of India.
JUDGEMENT-
Justice R S Pathak said that it was the duty of the court to secure immediate relief to the victims of the MIC leak and while doing that the court did not entered into any virgin territory. He applied the polluters pay principle and decide the compensation to be US $470. the majority opinion was given by Justice Venkatchaliah on behalf of himself and K.N. Singh and N.D. Ojha JJ. CJ Mishra concurred with him and Ahmadi J. it was also held that criminal proceedings must be initiated against the UCC and later they were quashed. A compensation of 750 crore rupees was to be given to the victim by UCC as per the judgement.
ANALYSIS-
The judgement was criticised mainly on the ground that the criminal proceedings were dismissed. It was also said that the Indian judicial system must have a speedy redressal mechanism and it was compared with the other countries saying that if such an incident had happened in any other countries then the authorities would have reacted in a completely different way. This incident also lead to enactment of several acts like the Environmental Protection Act, 1986; Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and etc. to ensure public welfare.
Even though UCC was a multinational corporation it was held liable for the tort committed by one of its subsidiary. However, the victims were compensated and justice was delivered to the maximum extent.
Track2Training 