9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1991 (10) TMI 306 - SC - Indian LawsSuit for compensation - dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens - quantum of compensation - fairness and reasonableness of the settlement - Union Carbide Corporation - Massive escape of lethal gas from the MIC Storage Tank of the plant into the atmosphere which led to the calamity - death toll upto then was 2, 660 and serious injuries suffered by several thousand persons - Interpretation of the expression cause or matter - principles of natural justice - settlement as violative of fundamental rights - HELD THAT - We might now sum up the conclusions reached the findings recorded and directions issued on the various contentions (i) The contention that the Apex Court had no jurisdiction to withdraw to itself the original suits pending in the District Court at Bhopal and dispose of the same in terms of the settlement and the further contention that similarly the Court had no jurisdiction to withdraw the criminal proceedings are rejected. It is held that under Article 142(1) of the Constitution the Court had the necessary jurisdiction and power to do so. Accordingly contentions (A) and (B) are held and answered against the petitioners. (ii) The contention that the settlement is void for non-compliance with the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3B CPC is rejected. Contention (C) is held and answered against the petitioners. (iii) The contention that the Court had no jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of power under Article 142(1) is rejected. But in the particular facts and circumstances it is held that the quashing of the criminal proceedings was not justified. The criminal proceedings are accordingly directed to be proceeded with. Contention (D) is answered accordingly. (iv) The orders dated 14th 15th of February 1989 in so far a they seek to prohibit future criminal proceedings are held no to amount to a conferment of criminal immunity; but are held to be merely consequential to the quash- ing of the criminal proceedings. Now that the quashing is reviewed this part of the order i also set aside. Contention (E) is answered accordingly. (v) The contention (F) that the settlement and the orders of the Court thereon are void as opposed to public policy and as amounting to a stifling of criminal proceedings is rejected. (vi) Having regard to the scheme of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act 1985 the incidents and imperatives of the American Procedure of Fairness Hearing is not strictly attracted to the Court s sanctioning of a settlement. Likewise the absence of a Re-opener clause does not ipso facto vitiate the settlement. Contention (G) is rejected. (vii) It is held per invitim that if the settlement is set aside the UCC shah be entitled to the restitution of the US 420 million dollars brought in by it pursuant to the orders of this Court. But such restitution shall be subject to the compliance with and proof of satisfaction of the terms of the order dated 30th November 1986 made by the Bhopal District Court. Contention (H) is rejected subject to the condition aforesaid. (viii) The settlement is not vitiated for not affording the victims and victim-groups an opportunity of being heard. However if the settlement-fund is found to be insufficient the deficiency is to be made good by the Union of India as indicated in paragraph 72. Contention (I) is disposed of accordingly. (ix) On point (J) the following findings are recorded and directions issued (a) For an expeditious disposal of the claims a time-bound consideration and determination of the claims are necessary. (b) In the matter of administration and disbursement of the compensation amounts deter- mined the guide-lines contained in the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Muljibhai v. United India Insurance Co are required to be taken into account and wherever apposite applied. Union of India is also directed to examine whether an appropriate scheme under the Unit Trust of India Act could be evolved for the benefit of the Bhopal victims. (c) For a period of 8 years facilities for medical surveillance of the population of the Bhopal exposed to MIC should be provided by periodical medical check-up. For this purpose a hospital with at least 500 beds strength with the best of equipment and facilities should be established. The facilities shall be provided free of cost to the victims at least for a period of 8 years from now. The state Government shall provide suitable land free of cost. (d) In respect of the population of the affected wards excluding those who have filed claims Government of India shall take out an appropriate medical group insurance cover from the Life Insurance Corporation of India or the General Insurance Corporation of India for compensation to those who though presently asymtomatic and filed no claims for compensation might become symptomatic in future and to those later-born children who might manifest congenital or prenatal MIC related afflictions. There shall be no upper individual monetary limit for the insurance liability. The period of insurance shall be for a period of eight years in future. The number of persons to be covered by this group shall be about one lakh persons. The premia shall be paid out of the settlement fund. (e) On humanitarian consideration and in fulfilment of the offer made earlier the UCC and UCIL should agree to bear the financial burden for the establishment and equipment of a hospital and its operational expenses for a period of eight years. In the result the Review Petitions arc allowed in part and all the contentions raised in the Review-Petitions and the I.As in the civil appeals are disposed of in terms of the findings recorded against the respective contentions. In the light of the disposal of the Review-petitions the question raised in the writ-petitions do not survive. The writ-Petitions are dismissed accordingly without any order as to costs.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to withdraw and dispose of the suits and criminal proceedings. 2. Compliance with Order XXIII Rule 3B, CPC. 3. Quashing of criminal proceedings. 4. Prohibition of future criminal proceedings. 5. Consideration of the settlement as stifling prosecution. 6. Necessity of a "Fairness-Hearing" and "Re-opener" clause. 7. Restitution of funds in case of setting aside the settlement. 8. Adequacy of the settlement fund and the Union of India's liability to make good any shortfall. 9. Medical surveillance costs and operational expenses of the hospital. 10. Provision for future claims and compensation for latent injuries. Summary: 1. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to withdraw and dispose of the suits and criminal proceedings: The Supreme Court held that it had the necessary jurisdiction and power u/s 142(1) of the Constitution to withdraw to itself the original suits pending in the District Court at Bhopal and dispose of the same in terms of the settlement. Similarly, the Court had the jurisdiction to withdraw the criminal proceedings. 2. Compliance with Order XXIII Rule 3B, CPC: The contention that the settlement is void for non-compliance with the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3B, CPC was rejected. The Court held that the principle of natural justice underlying Order XXIII Rule 3B was not violated. 3. Quashing of criminal proceedings: The Court held that it had the jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings under Article 142(1) but found that the quashing of the criminal proceedings was not justified in the particular facts and circumstances. The criminal proceedings were directed to be proceeded with. 4. Prohibition of future criminal proceedings: The provisions in the orders prohibiting future criminal proceedings were held to be merely consequential to the quashing of the criminal proceedings. Since the quashing was reviewed, this part of the order was also set aside. 5. Consideration of the settlement as stifling prosecution: The contention that the settlement and the orders of the Court thereon are void as opposed to public policy and as amounting to a stifling of criminal proceedings was rejected. The Court held that the settlement did not suffer from the vice of unlawfulness of consideration. 6. Necessity of a "Fairness-Hearing" and "Re-opener" clause: The Court held that the incidents and imperatives of the American procedure of "Fairness Hearing" were not strictly attracted to the Court's sanctioning of a settlement. Likewise, the absence of a "Re-opener" clause did not, ipso facto, vitiate the settlement. 7. Restitution of funds in case of setting aside the settlement: The Court held that if the settlement is set aside, the UCC shall be entitled to the restitution of the US 420 million dollars brought in by it pursuant to the orders of the Court. However, such restitution shall be subject to the compliance with and proof of satisfaction of the terms of the order dated 30th November 1986, made by the Bhopal District Court. 8. Adequacy of the settlement fund and the Union of India's liability to make good any shortfall: The Court held that the settlement is not vitiated for not affording the victims and victim-groups an opportunity of being heard. However, if the settlement-fund is found to be insufficient, the deficiency is to be made good by the Union of India as indicated in paragraph 72. 9. Medical surveillance costs and operational expenses of the hospital: The Court directed the establishment of a hospital with at least 500 beds strength with the best of equipment and facilities for medical surveillance of the population of Bhopal exposed to MIC for a period of eight years. The UCC and UCIL should agree to bear the financial burden for the establishment and equipment of the hospital, and its operational expenses for a period of eight years. 10. Provision for future claims and compensation for latent injuries: The Court directed the Union of India to take out an appropriate medical group insurance cover from the Life Insurance Corporation of India or the General Insurance Corporation of India for compensation to those who might become symptomatic in future and to those later-born children who might manifest congenital or prenatal MIC related afflictions. The premia shall be paid out of the settlement fund.
|
