Open Access Research Article
AN ANALYSIS ON BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY BY: SHARATH KUMAR R
Published Paper
Author Details
Authors : SHARATH KUMAR R
Registration ID : 106312 Published Paper ID: IJLRA6312
Year : Nov -2023 | Volume : II | Issue : 7
Approved ISSN : 2582-6433 | Country : Delhi, India
Email Id : Sharathkumar24276@gmail.com
Page No : 26 | No of times Downloads: 0065
Article Details
AN ANALYSIS ON BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY
AUTHORED
BY: SHARATH KUMAR R
COURSE:
BA.LLB(Hons.)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would
like to express my sincere gratitude to my mentors for guiding me in making
this research paper on “REFORM VS REHAB” and for providing me the knowledge
during my research. We cherish the motivation that has brought in me to work
harder and think more vibrantly. It has been an enlightening experience under
professors guidance and I take immense proud in being called her student.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
In order to
understand the Bhopal
Gas Tragedy and how it affected
the people in long term and short term.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The primary
aim of this research work is to highlight the major gas leak in India. Research paper will first look
into the Bhopal Gas Tragedy i.e., how it took place.
OBJECTIVES
1. To look
into the History and post effects of Bhopal Gas Tragedy.
2. To
critically analyze the Bhopal Gas Incident which took place in 1984 and changed
things permanently
It is hypothesized by the researcher about the Bhopal Gas
Tragedy in India and how to take measures for its prevention.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. How did
such tragic indecent took place?
2. What were
the warnings and precautions which should be taken?
3. First, was
there a settlement? If yes, How/what was the settlement for such major tragic
incident which took place?
4. What were
the criminal proceedings?
“Doctrinal (Non-Empirical) Method of Research” has been
relied upon for conducting the re- search. For the purpose of research
Encyclopedias’, Books, Reports of Competition Commission of India, research
projects related to Relevant Market have been relied upon.
INTRODUCTION: BHOPAL GAS INCIDENT
Introduction: Bhopal Gas Accident, On the night
of December 2-3, 1984, the most devastating industrial disaster occurred in Bhopal,
killing thousands and injuring thousands of all kinds. rice field. It was a clear night, with no wind or rain expected, and the worst nightmares befell the un- suspecting Bhopal people. A night shift
worker at the factory noticed a faint smell of cooked cabbage (related to MIC) but
ignored it. What they didn't know
was that poor maintenance and inadequate safety measures had allowed
water to enter his 40-tonne MIC of Tank 410 and a violentre action was imminent.
When some workers
dared to move towards the tank, they felt a growl
under their feet, and moments later the tank burst from its concrete shell
and exploded, sending
a deadly cloud of his MIC into the air. Thrown out. Prevailing winds on the
ground caused clouds to swirl over the surrounding slums and into the city of
Bhopal. In the Indian factory itself, one of his workers, Ranjit
Singh, died in 1981 of complications from his MIC. A few drops fell on his clothes and he removed his protective mask a little too soon. Compensation was paid, the incident
was covered up, and there was little suggestion that it was anything
more than an isolated defect. However, by the 1980s, demand for Sevin had declined, so the factory began to lose money and costs fell. We were
forced to cut back. Unfortunately, the cost-cutting guys knew nothing about the chemistry and ended up removing all safety mechanisms, including the
all-important flare to burn out the leaked MIC. Between 1981 and 1984 he
recorded six leaks, but according to subsequent reports by the Government of
Madhya Pradesh, there were no fatalities. He also had more than 28 leaks
recorded at his Sevin plant in the
US, but the information was not released for fear of causing an uproar
in the community. The Bhopal factory
he stopped complying with international safety
standards in 1984 and the lack of Indian standards further restricted safety.
About570,000 people were affected by this
incident.[1]
The establishment of this factory has an
interesting story that is closely related to India's 'green revolution'
in the 1970s. India has become a large consumer of these products as a
result of the increasing focus on using high-yielding varieties of seeds, chemical fertilizers
and pesticides to ensure crop self-sufficiency. This has led to severe shortages in the country itself. Foreign multi- nationals such as Union Carbide have recognized the enormous potential of
selling such pesticides and
fertilizers to the country's approximately 300 million farmers. rice field. One
of these products was the 'miracle'
insecticide 'Sebin', which was less environmentally harmful
than DDT but was equally
effective against many types of pests and was therefore used by many
third world pests at the time. It was very popular in the countries. was
an exception. Union Carbide's proposal to build a factory in Bhopal was
welcomed by the then government and was quickly approved. Bhopal was chosen mainly because of its central location,
good access to resources and easy communication with the rest of India.
But
instead of promoting the green revolution in the country, it ravaged the
country and completely changed the
face
of Bhopal.
Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) factory was established near Bhopal in 1969.
I was. 50.9% was owned by Union
Carbide Corporation (UCC) and 49.1% was owned by various Indian investors
including public sector financial institutions. It produced the insecticide
carbaryl. In 1979, the site was expanded to build a production plant for methyl isocyanate (MIC). His MIC, an intermediate
in the manufacture of carbaryl, was used in place of less hazardous but more ex- pensive materials. UCC
understood his MIC characteristics
and how to deal with it. Leak during routine maintenance at his MIC
facility on the night of December
2, 1984, around 9:30pm Reservoir
No.
610 had a large influx of water with a MIC of over 40 tons. This started a reaction, causing
a significant increase in temperature and pressure inside the tank. At about
12:30 a.m., 40 tons of his MIC, along with hydrogen cyanide and other reaction products, erupted through shattered
window glass into Bhopal's night air.[2]
The security
system was very small and out oforder. A senior factory official knew at
least an hour before the leak that there was a deadly build- up in the tank, but a siren alerting
the neighborhood community
said he was an hour after theleak began. It rang later. By then the toxic gas had covered an area of 40 km².
kill thousands of people. Over 500,000 people
suffered acute shortness of breath, eye pain and vomiting from in- haling the deadly
smoke. They panicked and escaped the toxic cloud that hung over the ground
for
more than four hours. Thousands of people flooded the hospital, their eyes and lungs burning and their suffocating agony. rice field.[3][4][5]
Short term
·
In addition to MIC, the gas cloud could have included
phosgene, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen
oxides, monomethylamine (MMA), and carbon dioxide produced in storage tanks or
in the atmosphere. There is a nature.
·
The gas cloud, mostly composed of material denser than
the surrounding air, remained low to the ground and spread outward through the
surrounding communities. Initial effects of exposure were coughing, vomiting,
severe eye irritation and choking. People who woke up with these symptoms fled
the factory. People walking in- haled more than people with cars driving.
Children and other people of short stature inhaled higher concentrations
because of their size. Many were trampled as they tried to escape.
·
Thousands died in the morning. On the Narmada River,
mass burials and cremations, as well as the disposal of bodies were carried
out. 170,000 people were treated in hospitals and makeshift pharmacies.
Thousands buffalo, goats and other animals were collected and buried. Within
days, the leaves on the trees turned yellow and fell off. Sup- plies, including
food, were in short supply due to safety concerns from suppliers. Fishing was
also banned, leading to further supply bottlenecks.
·
A total of 36 counties have been designated by
authorities as 'gas affected', affecting a population of 520,000 people.
Ofthese, 200,000 were under the age of 15 and 3,000 were pregnant. In 1991,
3,928 deaths were registered. An independent organization recorded 8,000 deaths
for her in the first few days. Other estimates vary between 10,000 and 30,000.
Another 100,000 to 200,000 people are estimated to have suffered permanent
injuries of varying severity.
·
Acute symptoms were burning of airways and eyes,
blepharospasm, shortness of breath, abdominal pain, and vomiting. The cause of
death was asphyxiation, reflex circulatory collapse, and pulmonary edema.
Autopsy findings included not only pulmonary changes, but also cerebral edema,
renal tubular necrosis, fatty liver, and ne crotizing enterocolitis. Stillbirth
rates increased by up to 300% and neonatal mortal-ity increased by 200%.[6]
·
An estimated 20,000 people have died from gas-related
illnesses since the accident. In addi- tion, from 100,000 he is estimated to
have 200,000 sequelae.
·
The quality of epidemiological and clinical studies
varies. Reported and studied conditions include eye problems, dyspnea,
immunological and neurological disorders, congestive heart failure secondary to
lung injury, reproductive failure in women, and congenital defects in children
of affected women. disease is included. Other symptoms and illnesses are often
at- tributed to gas exposure, but there are no adequate studies to support
this.
·
There is a clinic founded bya groupof survivors and
activists known as the Sambhavna. Sam- bhavna is the only clinic to treat those
affected bygas or subsequent water intoxication, treat- ing the condition with
a combination of Western and traditional Indian medicine and has con- ducted
extensive research.
·
Union Carbide and the Government of India have long
denied permanent damage from MIC and other gases. In January 1994, the Bhopal
International Medical Board (IMCB) visited Bhopal to investigate the health
status, medical system and socio-economic rehabilitation of survivors.[7]
Besides filing the suit, one of its prime responsibilities was to
register the claims of each and every
gas victim in Bhopal. The government has set up various investigative
commissions to investigate the causes of the disaster. They remained a half-hearted initiative at best. UCC,
on the other hand, proceeded
with the 'investigation' more quickly. In March 1985, it announced that the
catastrophe was due to "sabotage" by Sikh terrorists. They then
blamed the disgruntled workers.
In May 1986, J.F. Keenan stated that India, not the United
States, was the proper forum
for the Bhopal compensation process. At the first pretrial hearing of the consolidated Bhopal lawsuit in U.S. federal court, John F. Keenan ordered his UCC to pay interim
compensation of $10 million from $5 million "based on human decency." I ordered to UCC has agreed to provide $5 million, subject
to satisfactory distribution of funds and financial planning.
For eight months, the UCC and the GoI fought over
the terms to
use
the
$5
million
injunctive relief. Finally, in November 1986, the parties agreed to send money to
the Indian Red Cross via the American Red Cross.[8]
Even after a year of tragedy, no one, not even MP government officials in charge of victim assis tance, knew what the Red Cross would do
with the money. On December 17, 1987, a Bhopal
District Court judge issued an order ordering UCC to pay him Rs 4,444,350 crore as bridging aid. UCC said he challenged
the order in the MP High Court (located
in Jabalpur). The reason was that the Trial Judge did not have the authority
to issue orders under
the provisions of the Indian
Civil and Criminal Code. On April 4th, S.K. High Court Seth upheld UCC's liability
for the Bho- pal disaster,
but reduced interim compensation to Rs 2.5 crore.
UCC has appealed
the Supreme Court's order to
the Supreme Court of India, stating: On January 14, 1989, the Supreme Court ordered her UCC to pay him $470 million as a "full and final settlement" of all claims, rights
and liabilities arising from
the disaster. rice field. The Supreme Court of India ruled that the $470 million settlement was "fair, just and reasonable." UCC described the court's decision as fair and reasonable, and the company's shares soared in the London market. Analysts believe
the Bhopal gas spill that killed and injured thousands was settled
for just $470 million.
10,000 per victim (if split
evenly) That same year, a major
national newspaper reported that approximately $40,000 was spent on rehabilitation of each sea otter
affected by the Alaskan oil spill. Each sea otter re- ceived a lobster ration worth $500 per day. For example, life for an Indian in Bhopal was much cheaper than that for an American sea otter. In 1991, a Bhopal court subpoenaed Warren Ander- son for "murder during criminal proceedings." But he didn't show up.[9]
On September 9, 1993, UCC sold his entire
50.9% stake in UCIL to his Mc Leod Russell
India Ltd. of his BM Khaitan Group based in Kolkata.
By 2000, attempts to serve subpoenas from vic- tims' groups on Warren Anderson in
federal court for the Southern District of New York were unsuccessful. Kenneth McCallion, an attorney for some of the
victims and their families, said private
investigators hired to deliver subpoenas to Anderson's homes in Vero Beach,
Florida, Manhattan and Long Island,
New York, were unable to find him. Asked if he thought Warren Anderson
was hiding to avoid a subpoena, McCallion said, "I'm just surprised
we couldn't find him, the former
CEO
of a big company." Court orders issued by the Indian courts for him to ap- pear before the Bhopal District
Court to answer criminal
charges and these attempts to serve
him also failed.[10]
After a trial lasting more than two
decades, the judgement on Bhopal Gas tragedy, pronounced as on 7th june 2010. Chief Judicial Magistrate Mohan P Tiwari pronounced the judgment after a 23-year-long trial.
During the trial, a total of 178 prosecution witnesses were examined and 3008 documents were produced while eight
defence witnesses deposed in the court. Out of the nine accused tried for the
offences, R B Roy Choudhary, the then former Assistant Works Manager Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL), Mumbai died during the trial.
A tragic FIR was filed on December 3, 1984 and the case was referred to
the CBI on De- cember 6, 1984. CBI filed an indictment following
the December 1, 1987 investigation. Under section 304-A (death caused by negligence), sections 336, 337 and 338 (gross negligence) and section 35
(collective intent) of the Indian Penal
Code, the defendants were convicted. They were also sentenced under section 304-A (cause of death by
negligence) to three month s imprisonment and fine of Rs.250 under section
336, six months and Rs.500 under section 337, two years and Rs. Declared
1,000. Under section 338. blocks execute concurrently. I
frowned at the magnitude of the fine imposed by Chief Justice Mohan P. Tiwari
of the Bhopal Trial Court.
Lawyers said the court could have imposed exemplary fines on defendants and defaulting com- panies. CBI must appeal the verdict
to increase the amount of the fine," he said. WARREN ANDRESON, CEO of Union Carbide at
the time of the disaster, was charged with
manslaughter in the Bhopal disaster.
He traveled to India with the promise of Indian authorities not to be arrested. However,
authorities took Anderson
into custody. Anderson
posted his bail,
returned to the United States, and denied him return to India.[11]
He was declared a fugitive by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bhopal on
1 February 1992 for failing to
appear in court in a guilty murder case. Bhopal Chief Justice Prakash Mohan
Tiwari issued an arrest warrant for Anderson on 31 July 2009. The United States refused extradition
for lack of evidence.
In August 2009, a Union Carbide spokesperson said: He was convicted on June 7, 2010. In the wake of these convictions, a Union Carbide spokesman said,
"It appears that all the appropriate people
at UCIL - officials and those who actually did the
work on a daily basis - have been
in- dicted."
The Indian government
is also in denial mode about bringing justice to the thousands affected by the tragedy, but David
Headley was implicated in the killing of 200 people in the 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The main culprits in the Bhopal gas incident, or those who killed more than 20,000 people, have walked away with
acquittal, and the government has put those culprits on trial is not going to court.[12]
Affected
people accuse the Anderson administration of being a business mogul and profiting po- litical parties to
fight business elections.
The government's intentions remain in doubt if they fail to
do justice all
this in front
of
the government under
different parties For the last 26 years Congress and the BJP have ruled the state and have done nothing
to bring these perpetrators to justice. Compensation for
survivors struggling to survive a deadly disease was inadequate, let alone the dead.
Now waiting for another dangerous deal to go into effect. The nuclear power plant
will be built on land in India on the Union Carbide
line. In the event of a disaster, the government has created the Nuclear Liability Bill But many parts of our social policy oppose the current forms
of com- pensation that the bill refers
to. It lags behind international comparisons and does not meet the standards. So the question that
remains to be answered
is whether the government is proceeding
with a 'don't care' attitude. Mahira Udyog Sanstan Abdul-Jabbar, founder of Gus Peddit, and ac- tivist
Satinath Sarangi
also welcomed the Supreme Court's decision and expressed hope that
jus- tice will be served soon.
Mr S. R. Mohanty, Chief Secretary of Government of Madhya Pradesh
expressed his delight
at the CBI's initiative to
address the Supreme Court and said the CBI took it up and the Supreme Court
issued a notice.
This opens up the possibility of serving the cause of justice.
Sunita Narain, chairman of the Center
for Science and Environment, said the Supreme Court's ruling
confirmed that we are on the road
to justice.
LEGAL ASPECTS OF BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY
The Bhopal gas spill is the world's worst industrial disaster to date. It
happened in December 1984 in Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh. The tragedy was due to a leak of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas from a Union Carbide India Ltd (UCIL)
plant that was manufacturing pesticides. On the night
of December 2-3, 1984, MIC
gas, considered the industry's most toxic chemical, was released. People across the city of Bhopal were
exposed to the gas and, upon inhalation, experienced symptoms such as
coughing, vomiting, severe
eye
irritation and
choking. Thousands died instantly and hundreds suffered
aftereffects.
Lawsuit
In February 1985, the Indian government filed a lawsuit in a US court
against Union Carbide Corporation for making her $3.3
billion claim. By 1986, however,
all these cases in the United States District had been moved to India
due to inconvenient forums. This means that the case should be forwarded to a more appropriate forum to facilitate the process.
On
the other hand, in March 1985, the Bhopal Gas Leak Accident (Claims Handling) Act was passed, empowering the central government to be the sole
representative of all victims in all kinds of litigation, and to protect the interests of disaster victims.
is now fully protected. You will be protected and your claim for damages will be pursued expeditiously. In 1987, a
lawsuit was filed in the Bhopal District Court, ordering Union Carbide Corporation to pay Rs. 350 million
as interim compensation. However, UCC refused to pay
the amount because it was unable to issue a temporary
restrain in gorder. The High Court subsequently reduced this interim compensation to 250 crore. The Common wealth of India and
her UCC have requested a special leave appeal
against this High Courtorder.[14]
Settlement Orders
But the
major twist to these cases was the Settlement Order, which was overturned when
a settlement was reached between the Government of India and Union Carbide in
February 1989.Through this transaction, Union Carbide's liability for the full
and final settlement of all claims, rights and liabilities arising out of the
disaster was fixed at $470 million. The terms of the settlement also limited
liability for all future claims, whether civil or criminal. This means that
from now on all kinds of liability arising from disasters can only be charged
to the Government of India and Union Carbide will only be liable up to $470
million.[15]
“This
Settlement will be used to resolve past, present and future claims, causes of
action, and civil and criminal proceedings (if pending, the nature thereof) by
all Indian citizens and all public and private entities. (whether or not)
against UCC, Union Carbide India Limited, Union Car-bide Eastern, and all their
subsidiaries and affiliates, and all of their current civil and criminal proceedings
of any kind.
Settlement also limits liability from future accounts receivable. This
was certainly a bad move, and $470 million was not
enough to cover all of the injured, in fact it was the $3.3 billion originally claimed bythe U.S. Supreme Court.
This was clearly criticized from all sides. A number of motions for rehearing have been filed with the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the Settlement Decision. The Settlement Decision Was Appealed for Various Reasons First, it is pointed out
that the reconciliation agreement is between
the Commonwealth of India and the Union Carbide Corporation and that the actual people affected by such a reconciliation agreement
will be victims of tragedy. The first
argument putforward was that
the settlement order was void because none of the affected stakeholders werenotified.
The order was also attacked on the grounds
that it applied to future claims,
stifled prosecution, and was contraryto
public policy. No recurrence clause is a very important
issue. This is because
the latent period for the effects of toxic injury to
manifest was unpredictable and, therefore, the amount of compensation was erroneously determined. Moreover,
many bona fide claims may arise in the future, and a limitation of liability arising from a large-scale industrial disaster of such severity
and magnitude without a resumption
clause is plainly unjust and unacceptable. If so, it would
definitely be an unfair treatment. From the point of view of many people
injured by gas leaks.
However,
all of these motions were dismissed by the Supreme Court and the validity of
the settlement order was upheld in
the decision of Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, published on October 3, 1991. The court upheld the validity of the settlement order on all counts except
for the condition that the criminal proceedings be dismissed. Although
the mere conditionof dismissing the
criminal proceedings was not considered justified, all other aspects, includingthe amount of compensation determined in the settlement, were found to be valid. was not illegal
and there was no justifiable reason for invalidating the contract. The Settlement only limits
Union Carbide's liability and in any event, if the Settlement Fund is found to
be inadequate, the shortfall will be
replaced by the Union of India and there will be no impact on the victims. As aresult, Union Carbide
could not be held responsible. This of course means that if the claim exceeds his $470 million, liability for the
excess can only be collected by the Indian
Federation andUnion Carbide will not be held liable.
A
settlement order has been issued in response to an urgent request for
compensation from a victim. The reason we completed the peace settlement was that urgent assistance was essential.[16]
In addition
to these civil proceedings, criminal proceedings have also been initiated
before the Chief Justice and Magistrate of Bhopal. This process began in his
1987. The terms of the settlement agreement terminating the criminal
proceedings were found to be invalid and unjustified, allowing the criminal
proceedings that had been commenced to continue. The verdict was not announced
until June 7, 2010, when he was 26 years after the disaster. The case was
brought under section 304A and sections 336, 337 and 338 in conjunction with
section 35 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304A deals with death caused by
negligence. Articles 336, 337, and 338 regulate facts that endanger the life
and personal safety of others. This should be read in conjunction with Section
35, which deals with aspects of common in- tent.[17]
In this
case, prosecutors argued that the entire disaster was caused by a poorly
designed facility with many operational
deficiencies that was operated without due care. To support
the claim, I presented the findings
of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).
The CSIR
scientific team realized that the MIC was stored in large tanks rather than stainless steel drums. Flare towers and scrubbers
were out of service five months before
the disaster. Therefore, scrubbers
did not treat the leaking gas with caustic soda (caustic soda),
which was able to reduce the
concentration to safe levels. To reduce energy costs, the refrigeration system designed to prevent MIC
volatilization was left idle. The sliding
blind plate that was
supposed to prevent water from the pipes to be cleaned from
entering the MIC tank through the defective valve was not installed.
The factory utilized carbon steel valves despite their susceptibility
to corrosion in acidic environments. On the fateful night of the
disaster, a carbon steel valve was discovered leaking, enabling water ingress into the MIC tanks. Regrettably, the pipe
remained unrepaired due to concerns
over time and cost implications. This reflects inadequate caution in material
selection, insufficient monitoring of storage systems, poor
quality control of stored materials, and a lack of facilities for swift material
disposal. The primary factors contributing to the incident
include a disregard for
design choices, insufficient attention to alarming instruments, and a general
lack of caution.
The prosecution argues that the company
exhibited reckless indifference to public safety.
Despite possessing knowledge
about the dangers
of MIC gas, the company
authorities demonstrated gross
negligence, recklessness, and a disregard for public welfare. The element of criminality arises from knowingly
running the risk of such acts with indifference to consequences.
The company, being involved with a
hazardous substance like MIC, is
asserted to owe a duty of care to
the public, a duty that it allegedly failed to fulfill.
In
response, the UCC presented several defenses. Firstly, they contested the
admissibility of CSIR reports as
evidence, asserting that CSIR was a fact-finding body with limited purposes. Secondly, the company claimed to have
obtained all necessary licenses and approvals from the government, conducting its
business in an authorized manner.
The argument included the contention
that none of the company's employees had criminal intent to harm the public.
The UCC refused to admit negligence,
asserting that it couldn't be held responsible for the actions of its employees. They relied on the
principle that vicarious liability is not criminally applicable, absolving
directors from liability for employee negligence. Additionally, the UCC refuted allegations of improper design for UCIL facilities in India,
insisting that the MIC plant in Bhopal
mirrored the design of the plant in
Virginia, USA. It's noteworthy that the Indian
government was never permitted to visit the Virginia factory,
and the UCC distributed pamphlets
in defense of its position and other documents showing the
similarities between his two factories in Verginia and Bhopal have not produced any evidence in court to support their claims.[18]
Verdict: -
However, all these claims were dismissed and all defendants were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment and fines.
However, these orders could not be enforced be- cause some of the accused did not appear
in court. Warren
Anderson, who was chairman of the UCC at the time of the disaster, is still
on the run after being denied by the
U.S. government, and all his extradition requests remain unsuccessful.[19]
SINCE 1984
After the events of December 3, 1984, there was a significant increase in environmental aware- ness and activism in India. In 1986, the
Environmental Conservation Act was passed, creating the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and enhancing
India's commitment to the environment. Under the new law, the MoEF was given overall
responsibility for the administration
and enforcement of environmental laws and policies.
He pointed out the importance of integrating environmental
strategies into industrial development plans of all countries. Measures to develop the country's economy have been a
priority over the past two decades, de- spite increased government
commitment to public health, forests and wildlife protection.
India has experienced tremendous economic growth in the 20 years since
the Bhopal disaster. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita increased
from
$1,000 in 1984 to $2,900 in 2004, and continues
to grow at a rate of more than 8% per year. Rapid industrial development has contributed significantly to economic
growth, but at a heavy cost of environmental
degradation and increased public health risks. The MoEF faces an uphill battle to meet its man-date to reduce
industrial pollution as mitigation efforts eat up a large portion of India's GDP.
Overreliance on coal-fired power plants and poor enforcement of vehicle
emissions laws are the result of economic
concerns taking precedence over environmental concerns.
With the growth of industry since 1984, there has been an increase in
small scale industries (SSIs)
concentrated in the metropolitan areas of India. Regulations for disposal of
waste generated by SSIs are generally
less stringent, as individual industries generate less waste. This allowed SSI to discharge untreated
wastewater directly into the drainage system into the river. The Yamuna River in
New Delhi is an example. Dangerously high concentrations of heavy metals such as lead, cobalt,
cadmium, chromium, nickel and zinc have been found in the river. The river is an
important source of drinking water for the Indian capital, posing potential
health risks to the
people and communities living there downstream.
Land pollution due to uncontrolled disposal of solid and hazardous
industrial waste is also a problem
across India. With rapid industrialization, the generation of solid and
hazardous industrial wastes
has increased significantly, increasing the impact on the environment.
India has eased restrictions on foreign investment in order to join WTO rules, thereby
increasing capital flows.
In the
process, many environmental
regulations are being cur-
tailed as more foreign investment flows in. India's experience parallels that
of many developing countries
feeling the environmental impact of structural adjustments. The development
and export of natural resources in the subcontinent is accelerating. 4,444
The ban on placing industrial
plants in environmentally sensitive areas has been lifted, protected areas have been stripped of their status and
construction of pesticide, cement and bauxite mines has been permitted.
Over-reliance on coal-fired power plants and poor enforcement of vehicle emissions
laws are the result of ignoring economic
concerns about protecting the environment.[20]
In March 2001, residents of Kodaikanal, South India, reported
that the British-Dutch company Unilever had dumped toxic mercury
waste from a thermometer factory
operated by the company's Indian subsidiary, Hindustan
Lever. I was caught in this act when I discovered it. His 7.4-ton pile of glass laden
with mercury was found in a torn
chimney that had fallen to the ground in a junkyard near the school.
Steel from the World Trade Center debris was
exported to India in the fall of 2001, but apparently was not first
tested for asbestos and heavy metal contamination
in the Twin Towers debris. There are many other examples of poor environ- mental protection and economic considerations subverting public health concerns. The Bhopal disaster changed the nature of the chemical industry
and may have led to a rethinking of even the need to produce such potentially harmful
products. However, pesticides and their
precursors in Bhopal Lessons
learned from the acute and chronic effects
of exposure to algae have not changed patterns of agricultural practices.
An estimated 3 million people are affected by pesticide poisoning each year,
most severely in developing
agricultural countries. It is reported to be responsible for at least 22,000
deaths in India each year. Kerala
reported significant mortality and morbidity after exposure to the toxic pesticide endosulfan. This
endosulfan continued to be used by him 15 years after the Bhopal
incident.
Asbestos continues to be aggressively marketed in developing countries, as known associations
between asbestos products and respiratory disease limit their use in developed countries. India has become a major
consumer, consuming approximately 100,000 tones of asbestos annually, 80% of which is imported, with Canada being
the largest foreign supplier. The
mining, production and use of asbestos is very loosely
regulated in India despite the health
risks. Reports indicate that morbidity and mortality from asbestos-related
diseases in India will persist unless
bans and stricter controls are implemented. UCC has reduced its size byone-sixth due to restructuring and sale
since the Bhopal disaster. In doing so, the company avoided a hostile
takeover, kept a significant portion of UCC's assets out of the legal
reach of its victims, and generated substantial returns for its shareholders and management. The company, which still operates under
the umbrella of Dow Chemicals, said on its website that the Bhopal disaster was "the result of deliberate sabotage."
After the Bhopal disaster, some positive changes were seen. British
chemical company ICI, whose Indian
subsidiary manufactured pesticides, became more concerned with health, safety and environmental issues after the December 1984 incident.
The subsidiary currently spends
30-40% of its capital investment on environmental projects. How- ever, it still does not live up to the same rigorous
standards as its UK parent company.
US chemical giant DuPont learned a lesson from Bhopal in a different way. The company he spent
ten years trying to export a nylon factory from Richmond, Virginia,
to Goa, India.[21]
LEGAL ISSUES
One of the main issues raised by the Bhopal gas tragedy is that of
absolute liability. This question was discussed in detail in the MC. Meta v Indian Union was discussed. The principle of
absolute liability means that if a company engages in a dangerous or inherently dangerous industry and damage occurs as a
result of such activities, the company has an
absolute obligation to compensate for the damage, and the company He
took all reasonable care to ensure
thatthe damage was caused through no fault of his. In such an industry, safety design principles are not just about protecting against the most foreseeable everyday
accidents. Rather, we are trying to anticipate
the worst that could happen. Even if it is highly unlikely,
we are not only protecting ourselves
from it, but we are preparing to contain it and prevent it from happening
in the first place.[22]
Stated differently, strict liability in its purest form is absolute
liability. The Indian Supreme Court
established this liability standard in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
(Oleum Gas Leak Case). These exceptions include: -
·
Plaintiff’s own mistake
·
Plaintiff’s consent
·
Natural disasters
·
Third Party’s mistake
·
Part of a statutory duty
After the Bhopal Gas Disaster in December 1984 (Union Carbide Company v.
Union of India), the Indian judiciary made a concerted
effort to impose more protection for the public.
Therefore, the Oleum
Gas Leak led to the
evolution of the Doctrine of Absolute Liability.
Case and is regarded as a potent legal weapon against rogue companies
that disregarded public health risks.
The legal theory that emerged from the UK case Rylan v. Fletcher was far more potent than the doctrine of strict
liability. This implied that when there was a genuine risk to the public, the defaulter could still be
held accountable for mistakes made by third parties. This could ensure stricter compliance to standards that were meant to safeguard the public.24
This is the principle of absolute liability, meaning that the defendant cannot be held liable even if
he or she is not at fault. In the
case of absolute liability, the
strict liability defense also does not
apply. Liability is fixed even if the accident was an extraordinary event. In
such cases, it is good to claim
that the direct
or proximate cause
of the acci- dent, or that the cause of the accident
was in fact force majeure, or that it was an incident, ra- ther than the performance of such
dangerous activities. not be a
defense. Force majeure due to interference by third parties. Even if
you take the utmost care to prevent such a situation from happening, the responsibility lies with the company. This principle
of absolute liability in India
developed mainly due to the awakening caused by the Bhopal gas disaster and the Oleum gas
spill incident.
The Bhopal gas tragedy was also a factor in the passage of the Public
Liability Insurance Act in 1991. This
law applies compulsory insurance to all units or factories engaged in hazard- ous activities.
That aside, this tragedy has been the subject of much debate recently in
light of the Nuclear Liability Act.
The bill contains a number of controversial provisions intended to limit over- all
liability in the event of a nuclear accident. The bill also prohibits victims
from suing sup- pliers directly, allowing them to recover only from businesses. The bill
also caps the amount of money operators
can collect from suppliers.[23]
In light of the events following the Bhopal incident, it is clear that an
appropriate redress mechanism is
needed and it is important that any form of liability cap be abolished as this
is unconstitutional.
ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
Our Constitution provides
protection from laws imposing criminal liability for acts committed prior to passage of the law. Section 20(1) of Part III
(Fundamental Rights) reads: Penalties may
be heavier than those that could have been imposed under the law in force
at the time the crime was
committed.
Thus, the maximum penalties imposed on violators cannot exceed those
established by law at the time. With
respect to the 1984 Bhopal gas case, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was the only relevant law that provided criminal liability
for such cases. The CBI prosecuted the defend-
ants on behalf of the victims under Section 304 of the IPC (see Note 1). Section 304 deals with punishment
for guilty murder and requires intent to cause death. In
its judgment of September 13, 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no
evidence that: As such, the Supreme
Court has ordered the IPC's Section 304A charges to be restated (see Note 2). Section 304A deals with
unintentional manslaughter, and up to him is sentenced to two years in prison
and a fine.
The defendant's criminal liability was therefore based
on Section 304A of her IPC, and the trial was conducted accordingly. Civil
liability, on the other
hand, was determined bythe court
and given to the victim in the form of monetary compensation. Immediately after
the Bhopal gas incident, the
government proposed and passed a series of laws to regulate the environment. Among other things, these
laws filled legal loopholes that existed at the time of the incident. Under current
regulations (see note 3), cases like Bhopal are heard before the National Environmental Court (after it becomes effective) and are conducted under the provisionsof the Environment (Protection) Act 1986.[24]
1. Penalty for
manslaughter without homicide (IPC Section 304). A person faces life in prison
or both penalties for manslaughter without murder. causing or potentially
causing death, or both kinds of incarceration (with extensions of up to ten
years), or a fine, or both; Despite the fact that the act may be lethal if carried
out knowing that it is, there is no intent to cause or potentially cause death.
2. Manslaughter
under IPC Section 304A: An individual who causes death through deliberate or
careless actions that do not amount to manslaughter may be punished with a fine,
two years of hard labor in jail, or both.[25]
3. Major Laws
passed in 1984:
1986
– Environment (Protection) Act allows the central government to protect and im- prove the quality of the environment, to
set standards and to inspect industrial facilities. We were able to take action.
It also established penalties for violating the rules. 1991 – The Business Liability Insurance
Act provided for business liability insurance for the purpose of providing immediate assistance to persons
affected by accidents related to the
handling of dangerous goods. Established for
appeals bodies to hear appeals relating to restrictions on areas where an industry, operation or
process is prohibited, subject to safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act 1997-1986
The National Environmental Appeals Board Act. 2009 -
Not yet notified The National Green Tribunal
Act provides courts to expedite cases related to environmental
protection and to provide legal protection and compensation for damage to persons and property.
provides for the
establishment of The Act also repeals
the National Environmental Appellate Board Act of 1997.
4. Criminal
Liability provisions of environment Protection Act, 1986 Section 15. Penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Act Whoever fails to comply with or
contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made or orders or directions issued
thereunder, shall, in respect of each such failure or contravention, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years with fine
which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both, and in case the failure or contravention continues, with additional fine which may extend to five thousand
rupees for every day during which such failure or
contravention continues after the conviction for the first such failure or contravention.
(1)
If the failure or contravention referred to in
sub-section (1) continues beyond a period of one year after the date of conviction, the offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years.[26]
Section 16. Offences by Companies
(1)
If a company commits any offence under this Act,
everyone who was directly in charge
of the company's business conduct at
the time of the offence and accountable to the
company for it will be considered guilty of the offence and will face
appropriate legal action and punishment.
With the caveat that if the person can demonstrate that the crime was
committed without their knowledge
or that they took all reasonable precautions to stop it from being committed, they won't be subject to any of the
penalties outlined in this Acts.[27]
The Bhopal tragedy remains an alarming signal that is both neglected and
disregarded. The events in Bhopal,
along with their aftermath, serve as a crucial cautionary tale, highlighting
the manifold human, environmental, and economic hazards
that accompany the path to industrialization
for developing nations, with a specific emphasis on India. Despite initiatives taken by the Government of India, such as the establishment of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), to safeguard public
health against detrimental practices of both local and multinational heavy industries, the risks persist.
India's economy is experiencing remarkable growth; however, numerous
companies, both large and small,
persist in polluting the entire subcontinent, resulting in significant
environmental, health, and public
safety costs. Although strides have been made to address these issues through governmental efforts and grassroots
organizations, there remains an extensive agenda to ensure public health within the context of
industrialization. It is imperative to demonstrate that the tragic lessons from the loss of thousands
of lives in Bhopal are genuinely
taken into account and acted upon.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
·
http://twoeyesmakeonesight.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/the-legal-and-moral-implica- tions-of-the-bhopal-gas-tragedy/
·
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/legal-aspects-of-the-bhopal-gas- tragedy-373- 1.html
·
http://twoeyesmakeonesight.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/the-legal-and-moral-implica- tions-of-the-bhopal-gas-tragedy/
·
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/legal-aspects-of-the-bhopal-gas- tragedy-373- 1.html
[1] Ayushma Sharma, Bhopal Gas
Tragedy Case Study, 30th July 2019,
https://blog.ipleaders.in/bhopal-gas-trag-
edy-case-study-2/
[2] Business Standard, what was
Bhopal Gas Tragedy, 3rd may 2022, https://www.business-stand- ard.com/about/what-is-bhopal-gas-tragedy
[3] Rishikha Singh, Bhopal Gas Tragedy
after 38 years: Why the govt is demanding compensation now, 3rd De- cember 2022, 4:20 IST,
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/bhopal-gas-tragedy-1984-explained- 8303103/
[4] Edward Broughton, The Bhopal
disaster and its aftermath: a review, 10th May 2005, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1142333/=
[5] NDTV correspondent, Bhopal
disaster: The ignored Warnings, 14th June 2010, 6:54 IST, https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bhopal-disaster-the-ignored-warnings-420495
[6] Edward Broughton, The Bhopal
disaster and its aftermath: review, 10th May 2005,
https://ehjournal.bio- medcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-4-6#:~:text=On%20Decem- ber%203%201984%2C%20more,death%20for%20many%20thousands%20more.
[7] Byjus, Bhopal Gas Tragedy –
[December 2, 1984] This day in History, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti- cles/PMC1142333/
[8] Greenpeace, 37 years after
Bhopal Gas tragedy, 2nd December 2021, https://www.greenpeace.org/in- dia/en/story/12546/37-years-after-bhopal-gas-tragedy/
[9] Anup Dutta, Bhopal gas tragedy victims
face agonising neglect even after 37 years, 3rd December 2021, 16:29 IST, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/tributes-protest-mark-37th-anniversary-of-bhopal- gas-tragedy/article37822244.ece
[10] Priyankha das Gupta, Bhopal Gas Tragedy:
Consequences, Aftermath and Conviction, 14th June 2014, https://currentaffairs.adda247.com/bhopal-gas-tragedy
[11] Divya Trivedi, Bhopal gas
tragedy victims were used as guinea pigs for COVID vaccine trials, 12th
February 2021, https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/bhopal-gas-tragedy-victims-used-for-covaxin-trial-illegal/arti-
cle33641560.ece
[12] Ashutosh Shukla, 37 years
on, Bhopal gas tragedy victims and accused wait for justice, 17th
October 2021, 13:36 IST,
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/37-years-on-bhopal-gas-tragedy-victims-and-ac-
cused-wait-for-justice/articleshow/87079943.cms
[13] Pradyumna K Mishra, Ravindra
M Samarth, Neelam Pathak, Subodh K Jain, Smita Banerjee, Kewal K Maudar,
Bhopal Gas Tragedy:
review of clinical
and experimental findings
after 25 years, 19th March 2009, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19819
[14] S. Muralidhar, UNSETTLING
TRUTHS, UNTOLD TALES, 17th January 2004, https://www.ielrc.org/con- tent/w0405.pdf
[15] Union Carbide Cooperation,
Union Carbide's Response Efforts to the Tragedy and the Settlement, Union Car- bide's
Response Efforts to the Tragedy and the Settlement
[16] Business & Human rights
Centre, Union Carbide/Dow lawsuit (re Bhopal, filed in India), 11st April 2010, https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/union-carbidedow-lawsuit-re-bhopal/
[17] Deepikanuals,
Legal Aspects of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, 28th May 2019, http://www.legalservice- sindia.com/article/373/Legal-Aspects-of-the-Bhopal-Gas-Tragedy.html#:~:text=The%20proceed- ings%20were%20initiated%20under,and%20personal%20safety%20of%20others.
[18] Y K Tyagi, A Rosencranz, Some international law aspects of the Bhopal
disaster, 23rd August
2020, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3059509/
[19] Dr. Rhyddhi Chakraborty,
Case Study: Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1983-84), 4th September 2018, 17:34 IST, https://ethicalengineer.ttu.edu/studies/case-study-bhopal-gas-tragedy
[20] Sreekanth Khandkar &
Suman Dubey, From the India Today
archives (1984) | Bhopal gas tragedy: Will the
wounds ever heal?, 6th December 2022, 19:12 IST, https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/from- the-india-today-archives-1984-bhopal-gas-tragedy-will-the-wounds-ever-heal-2306048-2022-12-06
[21] Britannica, Bhopal disaster, 26th November 2022, https://www.britannica.com/event/Bhopal-disaster
[22] Arpithaupendra, THE LEGAL AND MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE BHOPAL
GAS TRAGEDY, 14th
May 2014, https://twoeyesmakeonesight.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/the-legal-and-moral-implications-of-the- bhopal-gas-tragedy/
[23] Dr.
Nakka Sai Bhaskar Reddy, Bhopal Gas Tragedy – 20 years after, 6th February 2011,
19:06 IST 25 Bridget Hanna,
Bhopal: Unending Disaster, Enduring Resistance, 17th April 2007, https://scholar.har- vard.edu/files/bridgethanna/files/Unending_Disaster.pdf
[24] Heba Ali, Concept of Absolute Liability, 14th May 2019, https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-absolute-liability/
[25] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/409589/#:~:text=%E2%80%94Whoever%20commits%20culpable%20homi-
cide%20not,causing%20death%2C%20or%20of%20causing
[26] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/24023684/#:~:text=(1)%20Whoever%20fails%20to%20comply,may%20ex-
tend %20to%20one%20lakh
Article Information
AN ANALYSIS ON BHOPAL GAS TRAGEDY BY: SHARATH KUMAR R
Authors: SHARATH KUMAR R
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/11/23
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- AbbreviationIJLRA
- ISSN2582-6433
- AccessOpen Access
- LicenseCC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.