“Union Carbide Corporation vs.

Union of India”

1. Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 273, 1989 SCC (2) 540

2. Petitioner: Union Carbide Corporation
3. Respondent: Union Of India ,Etc
4. Date of Judgement: 04/05/1989
5. Bench: Pathak, R.S. (Cj), Venkataramiah, E.S. (J), Misra Rangnath, Venkatachalliah,
M.N. (J), Ojha, N.D. (J)
6. Facts of the case: In the year 1934, Union Carbide India Ltd. (UCIL) was incorporated
in India. It basically manufactured batteries, chemicals, pesticides , etc. In 1970, it
established a pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. On the night of 2-3rd December,
1984, highly poisonous methyl isocyanate (MIC) leaked from the plant. Although no
official death count was undertaken, it is estimated that the while the fatalities were about
20,000, the number of people who suffered irreparable physical damage was about
60,000.
7. The Union of India and Parens Patriae: The Government of India enacted the Bhopal
Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 which gave the government the
exclusive right to represent the victims by invoking the doctrine of Parens Patriae which
allowed the government to protect its people and act on behalf of them in representative
capacity. This move was widely criticized as it was seen as effort to avoid liability which
the state would incur if it did not act as the respondent.
8. Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent: Exercising the position under the Bhopal
Act, the Central Government filed a complaint before the southern District Court in New
York arguing that the Indian Judiciary was ill equipped to handle such complex litigation
and did not have much expertise over the law of torts. Further, it was also argued that the
delay in the Indian legal system would impede the effective disposal of Justice. However,
these arguments of the government were dismissed and Judge John keenan claimed the
doctrine of forum non conveniens based on which a court can refuse jurisdiction over the
fact that there is a more appropriate forum available.
 Thus, In September 1986, the Union of India instituted proceedings against UCC in a
district court in Bhopal claiming compensation from UCC. The District Court awarded a
sum of 350 crore. Upon appeal, the Madhya Pradesh HC reduced it to 250 Crore. Again,
UCC filed an appeal before the Supreme Court being aggrieved by the High Court.
9. Judgment : The Supreme Court ordered UCC to pay a compensation of 750 crore “in
full settlement of all claims, rights and liabilities relating to and arising out of Bhopal Gas
Tragedy disaster”. All civil proceedings were disposed and all criminal proceedings
quashed. Later, several petitions were filed to revive criminal charges.
10. Analysis: The judgment has been criticized on several grounds, especially for quashing
criminal proceedings in the first place. The pertinent delay and lack of responsibility has
often raised the question “If lives in India are less valuable than the rest of the world?”
primarily because if such a ghastly act had taken place elsewhere, the grievances of the
people would have been actually addressed and the state would not have been allowed to
escape the liability. However, if we ignore the downside , we’ll notice that several
enactments like the Environmental Protection Act, 1986; Public Liability Insurance Act,
1991 , etc have been enacted to introduce sustainable and responsible development.