9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985. 2. Whether the Act provides a just, fair, and reasonable procedure for the victims. 3. The role of the Central Government as the exclusive representative of the victims. 4. The legality and fairness of the settlement reached under the Act. 5. The necessity of notice to victims before any settlement. 6. The adequacy of compensation and the inclusion of punitive damages. 7. The impact of the Act on criminal liability. Issue-Wise Comprehensive Details: 1. Constitutional Validity of the Act The Supreme Court held that the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 is constitutionally valid. The Act was enacted to ensure that claims arising from the disaster are dealt with "speedily, effectively, equitably and to the best advantage of the claimants." The Act does not curtail the liability of the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) or the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) and does not address criminal liability. 2. Just, Fair, and Reasonable Procedure The Court emphasized that the Act provides a special procedure for a unique class of victims, ensuring their claims are processed effectively. The Act was considered necessary due to the unique nature of the disaster and the victims' inability to pursue claims independently. The Court found that the Act, coupled with the principles of natural justice, provides a fair procedure. 3. Role of the Central Government The Act grants the Central Government the exclusive right to represent the victims. This was justified under the doctrine of "parens patriae," where the State acts as a guardian for those unable to protect their own interests. The Central Government's role was to ensure the victims' claims were pursued effectively against the multinational corporation, UCC. 4. Legality and Fairness of the Settlement The Court acknowledged the settlement of $470 million reached with UCC. It stated that the settlement was made considering the urgent need for relief and the complexities of prolonged litigation. The Court also noted that the settlement was approved after considering all relevant factors and ensuring it was just, equitable, and reasonable. 5. Notice to Victims Before Settlement The Court held that the victims should have been given notice before any settlement to ensure their views were considered. However, it recognized the practical difficulties in providing individual notices and suggested that public notices through mass media could suffice. The lack of pre-decisional notice was deemed a procedural lapse, but the Court did not find it sufficient to invalidate the settlement. 6. Adequacy of Compensation and Punitive Damages The Court noted that the settlement amount was based on a reasonable estimate of the damages. It acknowledged the argument for punitive damages but found it an uncertain area of law. The Court emphasized that the settlement aimed to provide immediate relief rather than engage in prolonged litigation over punitive damages. 7. Impact on Criminal Liability The Act does not address criminal liability, and the settlement's provision to quash criminal proceedings was outside the scope of the Act. The Court clarified that the Act deals only with civil claims for compensation and not with criminal proceedings. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, while emphasizing the need for a fair procedure, including notice to victims before settlement. The Court recognized the urgency and complexity of the situation, justifying the settlement reached. The Act was found to be a necessary and reasonable measure to ensure effective relief for the victims.
|
