In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Centre's 2010 curative petition seeking additional compensation from the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) for victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy. The court stated that the settlement amount already paid to the victims was found to be sufficient, and any attempt to reopen the settlement would open a Pandora's box in favor of UCC and to the detriment of the beneficiaries.
The Constitution bench comprising Justices S K Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, A S Oka, Vikram Nath, and J K Maheshwari pointed out the proceedings that led to the Supreme Court's July 19, 2004 ruling on review petitions in the case. It was found that the claimants had already been compensated more than what was reasonably awarded to them under the law, and therefore, there was no need for additional compensation.
The court criticized the Centre for filing the curative petition and placing the responsibility on UCC while neglecting its duty as a welfare state to make up for the deficiency and take out the relevant insurance policy. It was revealed that the Union of India did not take out any insurance policy, which was a gross negligence and a breach of the directions made in the review judgment.
The court also noted that the Centre's claim for a top-up had no foundation in any known legal principle and that a settlement is either valid or to be set aside only if it is vitiated by fraud. However, no fraud has been pleaded by the Union of India, and their only contention relates to a number of victims and injuries caused that were not contemplated at the time the settlement was affected.
The bench stated that it was known that medical facilities would have to be extended to rehabilitate people, and there was bound to be environmental degradation. It was UCC's allegation that the Union and State did not proactively detoxify or recommission the site, thereby aggravating the problem. However, this could not be a ground to seek annulment of the compromise, particularly as the settlement had to be reached in an expeditious manner.
The court's decision to dismiss the Centre's curative petition provides closure to the matter and prevents any further attempt to reopen the settlement. It reinforces the position that the settlement amount was sufficient to compensate the claimants, and any attempt to seek additional compensation would be detrimental to the beneficiaries.