This report evaluates the legal issues and justice served in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the world's worst industrial disaster. It analyzes the nature of the disaster, the litigation process, and the key legal issue of absolute liability. The report also explores whether justice has been served to the victims.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
0 International Law Antitrust and Trade Regulation Bhopal Gas Tragedy
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
1 Table of Contents Introduction...............................................................................................................................2 Nature of the Disaster................................................................................................................3 Litigation.....................................................................................................................................3 Legal Issue..................................................................................................................................4 Whether Justice has served.......................................................................................................4 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................6 References..................................................................................................................................7
2 Introduction The objective of this report is to evaluate the legal issues which are raised in the ‘Bhopal Disaster’ in India. The Bhopal Disaster or the Bhopal gas tragedy is considered as the world’s worst industrial disaster, till date, which occurred on the night of 2-3 December 1984 (Mukherjee, 2016). Thousands of people died due to the gas leak, and thousands are still suffering from its negative implications. In this report, the nature of this disaster will be analysed by evaluating its facts. This report will evaluate different litigations that followed this disaster along with identification of the legal issues in this case to determine whether the victims have achieved justice or not.
3 Nature of the Disaster The Bhopal disaster occurred in the pesticide plant of the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) which was situated in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation (UCC) owned 50.9 percent of the UCIL and the reset 49.1 percent was owned by Indian investor including the Government of India (Mukherjee, 2016). In this disaster, methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas, which is a highly toxic substance, leaked from the factory and over 500,000 people exposed to this gas. The gas spread in the radius of eight kilometres and it caused stomach pain, coughing, burning in the respiratory tract and breathlessness. The government announced that 3,787 people died due to the gas release and around 558,125 injuries occurred (India TV News, 2018). People who survived the disaster suffered from severe diseases for the rest of their lives such as gynaecological disorder, cancer, tuberculosis, and others. As per estimation, 8,000 people died within a period of two weeks from the gas leak, and additional 8,000 have died since the disaster (Sinha, 2009). It shows that the nature of this disaster was severe which has adversely affected a large number of innocent people. The UCIL used the MIC for production of carbaryl, which is a pesticide and it was alleged that most of the safety systems in the company were not functioning and they were in poor condition which caused this incident (Palazzi, Curro & Fabiano, 2015). Litigation In February of 1985, the first lawsuit was filed by the Indian government in various US courts for a claim of $3.3 billion which was to be recovered against the UCC (Odysseos, 2015). The US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided to centralise these cases in the Southern District of New York in Re Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant Disaster, 601 F. Supp. 1035 (J.P.M.L. 1985). However, the litigations were transferred to India from the US Courts on the grounds of convenience to make the trial process smooth. In 1985, the Indian Government passed the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act through which the Central Government become the sole representative for all victims (Sharma, 2014). In 1987, the Bhopal District Court ordered UCC to pay rupees 350-crore interim compensation, but it could not be decreed, and UCC refused to pay the amount.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
4 Later, this amount was reduced to rupees 250-crore by the High Court; however, the Indian government and UCC preferred an appeal against this order. A major twist came in this proceeding when the Indian government and UCC agreed for the settlement order in which they liability of UCC was fixed at $470 million for full and final settlement while eliminating all other civil or criminal liabilities (Upendra, 2016). Apart from civil proceedings, UCC also faced criminal proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Bhopal which was initiatedin 1987. Duetothesettlement order, thecriminalproceedings were considered invalid and unjustifiable, and they were not continued. Legal Issue The key legal issue with this disaster was relating to the principle of absolute liability which was later elaborated in the judgement ofM.C. Mehta v Union of India(1987) SCR (1) 819. As per this principle, an entity that is engaged in the hazardous or inherently dangerous industry have absolute liability to compensate any harm which is a result of such activity, and the question regarding whether the enterprise has taken reasonable care to avoid the harm should not be considered (Sutaria, 2014). The principle of ‘absolute liability’ is reference to the rule of ‘strict liability’ which was established by the court in the leading English case ofRylands v Fletcher[1868] UKHL 1. In the case of UCIL, the company did not take appropriate measures to ensure the safety of people to avoid the leakage of MIC gas based on which the issue of absolute liability was raised. Whether Justice has served On June 7, 2010, the judgement was delivered that criminal proceedings can be initiated against UCC and its members under section 304 A, 336, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Section 304 A deals with the cause of death due to negligence and section 336, 337 and 338 provides provisions regarding offences relating to endangering the life and personal safety of others (Mittal, 2016). Allegations were made against UCC that its plant was defectively designed as there were a number of operations defects and safety hazards due to which reasonable care was not taken to ensure that safety of others. The UCC provided in its defence that the plant was designed similarly as its MIC plant in Virginia; however, no evidence was given to support this argument. Other arguments were also made by the UCC to reject its negligence to ensure the safety of others (Edwards, 2014).
5 These arguments were rejected and all accused found guilty by the court. However, these orders were not enforced because accused did not appear before the court and the extradition of Warren Anderson, chairman of UCC, still remain unsuccessful as it is rejected by the US government; therefore, justice has not served to the victims.
6 Conclusion In conclusion, the Bhopal gas tragedy is still the world’s worst industrial disaster, and the government should implement effective policies to regulate such industries to avoid similar events in the future. Stricter laws should be implemented on these companies by giving instructions for standards which should be maintained by the company to ensure that companies did not act negligently. Since accusers are not punished for their actions and people are still suffering from negative implications of the gas leak, justice is not served to victims.
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
7 References Edwards, T. (2014). Criminal Failure and" The Chilling Effect": A Short History of the Bhopal Criminal Prosecutions.Social Justice,41(136), 53-79. India TV News. (2018).34 years of Bhopal gas tragedy: All you need to know about 'world's worst industrial disaster'.Retrieved fromhttps://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india- 34-years-of-bhopal-gas-tragedy-all-you-need-to-know-about-world-s-worst- industrial-disaster-488787 Mittal, A. (2016). Retrospection of Bhopal gas tragedy.Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry,98(9), 1079-1083. Mukherjee, S. (2016).Surviving Bhopal: Dancing bodies, written texts, and oral testimonials of women in the wake of an industrial disaster. Springer. Odysseos, L. (2015). The question concerning human rights and human rightlessness: disposability and struggle in the Bhopal gas disaster.Third World Quarterly,36(6), 1041-1059. Palazzi, E., Curro, F., & Fabiano, B. (2015). A critical approach to safety equipment and emergency time evaluation based on actual information from the Bhopal gas tragedy.Process safety and environmental protection,97, 37-48. Sharma, S. (2014). Indian media and the struggle for justice in Bhopal.Social Justice,41 (135), 146-168. Sinha,I.(2009).Bhopal:25yearsofpoison.Retrievedfrom https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/04/bhopal-25-years-indra- sinha Sutaria, A. (2014). Placing the Indian civil nuclear liability regime in context: the extent of supplier’s liability.Journal of Risk Research,17(1), 97-113. Upendra, B. A. X. I. (2016). Human Rights Responsibility of Multinational Corporations, Political Ecology of Injustice: Learning from Bhopal Thirty Plus?.Business and Human Rights Journal,1(1), 21-40.