In the well-known bhopal gas leak case, union carbide corporation v union of india, Indian courts reaffirmed the concepts of strict liability and absolute blame. Methyl isocyanate, a highly hazardous gas, leaked from Union Carbide Limited’s (UCIL) property, endangering a sizable population as well as the surrounding vegetation and wildlife. Following this incident, the Public Insurance Liability Act of 1991 and the environment protection act of 1986 were passed in an effort to stop such tragedies. article 21 of the indian constitution, which protects everyone’s right to life and personal liberty, was even expanded by it.
union carbide corporation v union of india Case Facts
- Union Carbide India Ltd. (UCIL) was amalgamated in India in 1934. It produced insecticides, chemicals, and batteries. In 1970, UCIL set up a pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
- Extremely poisonous methyl isocyanate (MIC) escaped from the plant on the evening of December 2-3, 1984.
- There was no formal tally of deaths, but it is thought that there were over 60,000 individuals with irreversible physical harm out of the approximately 20,000 casualties.
union carbide corporation v union of india Issues
In the present case, the legality of the settlement decision issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court was contested on the grounds that:
- Was the amount of the settlement reasonable or not?
- Is it appropriate to abandon the criminal case against Union Carbide?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- First, the appellants contested the court’s jurisdiction; these were appeals based on the interlocutory injunction that provided the victims with temporary compensation. Article 139A of the Constitution exhausts the Court’s authority to dismiss or transfer a lawsuit or action to itself. The transfer that was implied in the suits’ final resolution was that the unlawful suits were not on the court’s docket and could not be resolved by recording a settlement. Therefore, the settlement lacks jurisdiction.
- The appellants contended that the strict liability doctrine established in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) had been limited by the M.C. Mehta decision (1986), and the recently introduced doctrine of absolute liability should not have any retroactive repercussions.
- It was contended that the lawsuit in which the interlocutory injunction was obtained did not include the criminal proceedings. Consequently, the Court lacked the authority to remove those criminal proceedings from its own jurisdiction and to quash them.
- There was a doubt about the shareholders’ culpability. The appellant claims that in a business limited by shares, the liability of the shareholders must be ascertained, and whether the legal notion of penetrating the corporate veil renders union carbide corporation accountable unconscionable.
Respondent:
- According to the respondents, the appellant was obligated to provide gas victims with interim compensation under the “substantive law of torts” because, in the context of the aforementioned law, the terms “other authority” in Article 372(1) of the Indian Constitution included a competent civil court, in this case the District Court of Bhopal, which has jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.
- Because of this, it was clear from the Bhopal lawsuit that the company involved in the high-risk activity, union carbide corporation, was liable for damages under the principles of absolute liability.
- Even though the M.C. Mehta case was decided after the Bhopal gas tragedy, the judgment’s absolute culpability premise might still be applied.
- The corporate veil had to be lifted as the union carbide corporation owned the bulk of the shares and the UCIL lacked the resources to adequately recompense the victims.
union carbide corporation v union of india Judgment
- In order to “full settle all claims, rights, and liabilities arising out of and relating to the bhopal gas tragedy disaster,” the Supreme Court ordered union carbide corporation to pay damages of 750 crores.
- Every criminal case was dropped, and all civil cases were resolved. Subsequently, numerous requests to revive criminal charges were submitted.
- The ruling has drawn criticism for a number of reasons, chief among them being that it initially struck down criminal proceedings.
- The issue “If lives in India are less valuable than the rest of the world?” has frequently been posed in response to the pertinent delay and lack of responsibility because the people’s wrath and grievances would have been addressed if a terrible deed had occurred somewhere else. The state could not have avoided its responsibility.
- On the other hand, if we overlook the drawbacks, we will see that a number of laws, such as the public liability insurance act of 1991 and the environmental protection act of 1986, were passed in order to promote sustainable and ethical development.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
