Bhopal Gas Tragedy after 38 years: Why the govt is demanding compensation now
In October, the government told the Supreme Court that it is “keen to pursue” a petition for additional compensation in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case, saying it “cannot abandon” the people. What is the case about, and what does the petition demand?
On the night of December 2, 1984, one of the biggest industrial disasters to ever take place began unfolding in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Harmful Methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas started leaking from a nearby Union Carbide pesticide plant, eventually resulting in the Bhopal Gas tragedy, where an estimated 3,000 people died within the first few days. Over time, similarly horrifying numbers of those who suffered life-long health issues would become known.
For the first time in India, the case led to a focus on the need for protecting people and the environment from industrial accidents, with new laws introduced by the government afterwards. But those who suffered the effects firsthand have continued insisting that the company at the centre of it all – Union Carbide, now a part of Dow Jones – has not fulfilled its responsibility in terms of providing just compensation.
Around 19 years after compensation was agreed upon, the Indian government filed a curative petition in 2010 to seek additional compensation from Dow, of more than ten times the amount it gave in 1989. Last month, the government told the Supreme Court that it is “keen to pursue” it, saying it “cannot abandon” the people.
How did the industrial disaster occur, and what is the recent demand for compensation? We explain.
The night of December 2, 1984
Union Carbide (India) Ltd. (UCIL) was a subsidiary of the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), a US corporation. The UCIL pesticide manufacturing factory was located on the outskirts of Bhopal. On December 2, highly toxic MIC gas escaped the plant. People living in nearby areas reported a burning sensation in their eyes and difficulties in breathing, with many also losing consciousness.
Its effects were such that apart from killing thousands of people in a short span of time, it led to disease and other long-term problems for many who inhaled the gas. The scale of environmental pollution also became clearer only later. For example, the sources of water around the factory were deemed unfit for consumption and many handpumps were sealed. To date, the reproductive health of many of Bhopal’s women has been affected, and children born to those exposed to the gas have faced congenital health problems.
The aftermath
A 2019 report by the UN’s International Labour Organization (ILO) said at least 30 tonnes of the poisonous gas affected more than 600,000 workers and nearby inhabitants. It added the disaster was among the world’s “major industrial accidents after 1919”.
Multiple analyses have alleged that the leak was a result of general laxity in safety rules, and in the training of the workers, most of whom were unaware of the MIC’s dangers. Dr S Varadarajan, director general of the Government’s Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), said at the time that the MIC gas in its plant was being handled without adequate safety measures or plans for emergencies.
The incident also pointed to the lack of specific laws in India at the time for handling such matters. As a PRS Legislative Research article points out, this changed after Bhopal. Major laws passed since 1984 include the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which authorised the central government to take relevant measures and regulate industrial activity for environmental and public safety.
The Public Liability Insurance Act of 1991, which provides public liability insurance for providing immediate relief to the persons affected by an accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance, was also passed.
The demand for compensation
After the disaster, the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act was passed in 1985, giving certain powers to the Indian government for settling claims. It said the Central Government would have the “exclusive right” to represent, and act in place of every person connected with the claims.
A case was lodged against Union Carbide. Warren Anderson, the Chairman of UC, was arrested when he visited India but was shortly released on bail, after which he left the country. Other high-level executives were also released on bail.
The case was also in a US court for some time but was later transferred to India. By December 1987, the CBI filed a charge sheet against Anderson. Two years later, a non-bailable warrant of arrest against Warren Anderson was issued, for repeatedly ignoring summons. Anderson never returned to India and died in 2014.
In February 1989, the Indian government and Union Carbide struck an out-of-court deal and compensation of $470 million was given by UC. The Supreme Court also upheld it in a judgement. Over the years, the government gradually released the money, but the delay led to frequent protests by those affected.
Many of those people continued petitioning on the matter. The CBI, in 2010, sought reconsideration of a 1996 Supreme Court judgement, which had whittled down the charge against the company to ‘causing death due to rash and negligent act’.
The new petition
With the billion-dollar corporation Dow Jones taking control of Union Carbide in 1999, it became the focus of proceedings. It has opposed the reopening of compensation claims. “Dow has long maintained that it has no connection to the incident and does not belong in any legal proceeding involving Bhopal,” it said.
It emphasised the SC’s earlier judgements, claiming since the government agreed to the earlier compensation there is no case now. It has said of the 2010 petition, “The Government’s ill-advised action puts at peril the image of India as a nation committed to promoting and adhering to accepted legal principles and the rule of law, with the inevitable result that confidence in investing in India will be undermined.”
Attorney General R Venkataramani told a five-judge bench in October 2022 that he had looked into examples elsewhere and has considerable literature on where the courts have gone beyond the already conducted settlement. But a delay of many years since the judgment was passed has reduced the chances of any change in the status quo. As University of Warwick Law professor Upendra Baxi wrote in The Indian Express, a “heroic effort” would be needed to enforce any ultimate result.
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/bhopal-gas-tragedy-1984-explained-8303103/
