The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the Center’s curative plea for enhanced compensation for the victims of the 1984 Bhopal Gas tragedy from US-based firm Union Carbide Corporation, now owned by Dow Chemicals.
“The sum of Rs 50 crores lying with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) shall be utilized by the Government of India to satisfy pending claims,” the Supreme Court said while dismissing the Center’s curative plea for enhanced compensation for the victims of the 1984 Bhopal Gas tragedy. The judgment was pronounced by a five-judge constitutional bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. The bench also comprised Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath, and JK Maheshwari.
“If it is reopened, then it may open Pandora’s box and will be detrimental to the claimants. The curative petition cannot be entertained,” the court said. The court noted that the failure to take insurance policies is gross negligence on the part of the Indian government.
On January 12, the Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the Center’s curative plea for enhanced compensation for the victims of the 1984 Bhopal Gas tragedy from US-based firm Union Carbide Corporation, now owned by Dow Chemicals.
The Center’s curative plea for enhanced compensation for the victims sought a direction to Union Carbide and other firms to pay an additional Rs 7,400 crore over and above the earlier settlement amount of USD 470 million (RS 715 crore at the time of settlement in 1989) for paying compensation to the gas tragedy victims.
The government sought a re-examination of the apex court’s February 14, 1989 judgment, which fixed compensation at USD 470 million, contending that the 1989 settlement was seriously impaired. The contention of the central government was that the compensation, determined in 1989, was arrived at on the basis of assumptions of truth unrelated to realities.
During the hearing, successor firms of the Union Carbide Corporation told the apex court that the depreciation of the rupee since 1989, when a settlement was reached between the company and the Center, cannot be a ground to now seek a top-up of compensation for the victims.
