Date: 24/03/2023

Relevance: GS-2: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary

Key Phrases: Curative Petition, settled principles of law, top up, Union Carbide Corporation, methyl isocyanate, Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002).

Context:

• The Bhopal Gas Tragedy is one of the worst industrial disasters in India's history, which killed thousands of people and affected many more.
• A recent decision by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India to dispose of the curative petition related to the tragedy has raised several vexed issues.

Key Highlights:

• The Court's language was carefully chosen, but it referred to the tragedy as an "incident," which diminishes the enormity of the victims' suffering.
• The compensation amount of $470 million, which is only six times more than the compensation for motor accidents, seems inadequate.
• The Court's frequent references to "private parties" demote the petitioners who seek relief from injustice or tyranny.
• The Court has justified the 1989 Bhopal judicial settlement order because it provided immediate funds for the victims, and a civil suit would have taken too long.
• However, the Court's decision not to reopen the settlement amount even if fraud has been practised in reaching it is questionable.
• The Court's reiteration of "settled principles of law" in the curative petition may not achieve justice and fairness.
• The Court has expressed its displeasure with the Union of India's failure to obtain a group life insurance policy for the victims, but it does not provide a sufficient reason for the Court not to ask the UOI to pursue care and justice duties that are paradigmatically ingrained in the Bhopal Act.
• The Court's decision not to allow a "top up" compensation and not to impose a greater liability on Union Carbide Corporation than it initially agreed to bear, raises questions about the Court's obligations towards the victims of the tragedy.

What is Curative Petition?

• A curative petition is a legal remedy available in India that allows a person to seek a review of a final judgment or order passed by the Supreme Court or a High Court, after exhausting all other available legal remedies.
• It is considered the last resort for seeking justice in a case.
• The concept of the curative petition was first introduced by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002).
• The court held that a curative petition can be filed in cases where the petitioner has a strong reason to believe that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court was unfair and violated the principles of natural justice.
• The grounds for filing a curative petition are limited and include a violation of principles of natural justice, lack of opportunity to present one's case, and other similar grounds.
• A curative petition is heard by a bench of the senior-most judges of the court, and it can only be entertained if it fulfills certain criteria as laid down by the Supreme Court.
• It is important to note that a curative petition is not an appeal or a review, but a rare remedy that can only be invoked in exceptional cases where there has been a clear violation of principles of natural justice or where the final judgment is likely to cause a grave miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion:

• The Bhopal gas tragedy settlement has significant implications for the larger issue of corporate accountability in India.
• The case highlights the challenges of holding corporations accountable for their actions in a developing country with weak legal institutions.
• It also raises questions about the role of multinational corporations in developing countries and the responsibilities they owe to the communities in which they operate.
• The Bhopal tragedy has led to greater awareness of corporate social responsibility and the need for stronger regulations to protect workers and the environment.
• The case underscores the need for more effective legal frameworks and institutions to ensure that corporations are held accountable for their actions, and victims are adequately compensated for their losses.
• Ultimately, the Court's decision seems to prioritize pragmatism over justice, leaving the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy without a sense of closure or just resolution to their suffering.

Source: The Indian Express

Mains Question:

Q. The Court's justification of the 1989 Bhopal judicial settlement order has been criticized for prioritizing settlement over justice for the victims. Discuss the Court's reasoning for settling the case and its impact on the larger issue of corporate accountability in India. (250 Words).