List of Current Affairs

Source: Madhya Pradesh Court  

Why in News? 

The non-removal of toxic waste from the Union Carbide Factory site in Bhopal remains a critical issue, with the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently expressing strong disapproval over the delay. Marking 40 years since the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the court ordered immediate cleanup and threatened strict action, including contempt charges, against responsible officials if compliance isn't ensured within four weeks. Despite multiple directives since 2004, including a sanctioned plan and awarded contract, little progress has been made, raising concerns about public safety and potential environmental hazards. 

What was the Background of Alok Pratap Singh (Deceased) In Rem v. the Union of India and Others case? 

• The Union Carbide Factory site in Bhopal, which was the location of the infamous Bhopal Gas Tragedy that occurred 40 years ago. 
• There are many judgments passed by Court on the Bhopal Gas Tragedy in year 1989,1991 and 2023. 
• The present petition Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was originally filed in 2004 to state the persistent inaction of both the Central and State Governments regarding the toxic waste and chemicals still present at the factory site. 
• The core issues in this case include: 
  • Extensive Toxic Contamination: Thousands of tons of toxic waste and hazardous chemicals remain dumped at the abandoned Union Carbide Factory site, posing significant environmental and public health risks to the surrounding Bhopal city. 
  • Prolonged Governmental Inaction: Despite multiple court directions and the passage of nearly two decades since the original PIL was filed, minimal progress has been made in cleaning up the site and removing the toxic materials. 
  • Financial Allocation and Contractual Delays: The Central Government has provided funds to the State Government, with the state reportedly receiving 126 crore rupees. A contract for waste removal was awarded on September 23, 2021, and the contractor was paid 20% of the contract amount. However, no substantial steps have been taken to commence the cleanup process. 
  • Environmental Hazard: The toxic waste continues to contaminate the surrounding soil and groundwater, presenting an ongoing threat to the local population's safety and health. 
• The legal proceedings have involved multiple stakeholders, including the Union of India, the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board, and various advocacy groups representing the victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. 
• The PIL seeks to compel governmental authorities to fulfill their statutory obligations under environmental laws and take comprehensive remedial measures to clean up the toxic waste and decontaminate the Union Carbide Factory site. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court critically noted the protracted nature of this litigation, observing that despite the PIL being filed in 2004, approximately 20 years have elapsed with respondents remaining at the initial stages of addressing the environmental hazard. 
• The High Court states the paramount importance of removing toxic waste from the plant site, decommissioning the MIC and Sevin plants, and addressing contaminants that have spread in surrounding soil and groundwater as critical to public safety in Bhopal city. 
• The Court expressed significant judicial displeasure at the continued state of inertia, noting that despite multiple directions from both the Supreme Court and the High Court, no substantive steps have been taken to remove toxic waste/material, even after a contract was awarded and funds were allocated. 
• The judicial bench observed the potential for another environmental tragedy if immediate remedial actions are not undertaken, underscoring the urgency of the matter on the 40th anniversary of the original Bhopal Gas Tragedy. 
• The Court observed discrepancies in governmental responses, noting the Central Government's claim of having paid its share to the State Government, while the State Government claimed to have received 126 crores and awarded a contract, yet no meaningful action had been initiated. 
• The judicial observations pointedly critiqued the minimal steps taken, characterizing the governmental response as inadequate and potentially endangering public health through continued delay and inaction. 
• The Court explicitly recognized the need for comprehensive environmental remediation,states statutory obligations under environmental laws and the critical requirement of safe disposal of toxic materials. 
• The bench noted the specific timeline issues, observing that a plan produced by the State Government on 20th March 2024 indicated a minimum period of 185 days and a maximum of 377 days for cleanup, yet no substantive progress had been made. 

What was the Timeline of Bhopal Gas Tragedy?  

M C Mehta v. Union of India (1986) 

Facts: 

• The plant of Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries' was situated in a heavily populated area with approximately 200,000 people residing within a 3-kilometer radius. 
• Leakage incidents of oleum gas from the plant occurred in December 1985, affecting residents and raising safety concerns. 
• The plant was commissioned in 1949, and its safety measures were not updated until the Bhopal disaster in 1985. 
• Multiple expert committees were formed to assess the plant's safety and suggest improvements. 
• The issue in this case was whether Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries' caustic chlorine plant located in a densely populated area can be restarted considering the potential hazard and risk to the community? 

Observations: 

• The court acknowledged the risk of chlorine gas leaks and the potential for serious consequences. 
• The court found evidence of negligence in the plant's maintenance and operation by Shriram's management. 
• The court observed the importance of safety measures and adherence to recommendations from expert committees. 
• The court recognized the long-term solution lies in relocating the plant but acknowledges the need for an immediate decision regarding restarting operations. 
• Additionally, the court implicitly recognized the principle of absolute liability in this case, which holds that those who engage in hazardous activities are liable for any harm caused, regardless of fault. 

Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (1989) 

Facts: 

• On 3^rd December 1984, a catastrophic gas leak occurred at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, India.  
• A massive amount of toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas escaped, enveloping the densely populated areas surrounding the plant.  
• The immediate impact was devastating, with thousands of people losing their lives and countless others suffering severe injuries.  
• The long-term consequences have been equally tragic, with survivors experiencing persistent health problems and environmental contamination.  
• Legal battles ensued, with cases filed in both Indian and US courts. 
•  A settlement was eventually reached in 1989, but the compensation provided to the victims has been widely criticized as inadequate. 

Observations: 

• The court-approved settlement for the Bhopal Gas Leak tragedy victims was based on the following considerations:  
  • Immediate relief for the suffering victims. 
  • Uncertainties and delays inherent in the judicial process. 
  • Prima facie estimates of the number of deaths and serious personal injuries. 
  • The need to apply higher standards of compensation due to the nature of the disaster. 
• The court acknowledged the limitations of the settlement in addressing broader legal principles related to ultra-hazardous technologies and strict liability. 
• The court states the importance of evolving a national policy to protect against such hazardous pursuits. 

Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (1991) 

Facts: 

• Union Carbide Corporation offered $5 million as interim relief to the victims through the Indian Red Cross Society (IRCS). 
• A US court order directed that this amount would be credited towards the final settlement. 
• Later, the Indian government settled the case with Union Carbide for $470 million. 
• IRCS claimed the $5 million was a separate fund and not part of the settlement. 

Court's Observation: 

• The US court order clearly stated the $5 million was an advance payment or credit against any final judgement. 
• Any agreement between IRCS and American Red Cross regarding the fund's nature wouldn't change the US court order. 
• The court dismissed IRCS's application. 
• The unspent portion of the $5 million becomes part of the Bhopal gas relief fund. 

Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2023) 

Facts: 

• The Indian government filed a lawsuit against Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) in the US, but the case was dismissed, and the dispute shifted to Indian courts. 
• A settlement was reached in 1989, with UCC agreeing to pay $470 million to the Indian government to compensate victims. 
• The Union of India filed this to reopen that case and plead for enhanced compensation.  

Observations: 

• The court considered the settlement amount to be reasonable, given the circumstances and the need for immediate relief. 
• The court acknowledged the possibility of future claims from victims who may develop health issues later. 
• The court placed the responsibility on the Indian government to provide adequate compensation to victims, even if the settlement fund proves insufficient. 
• The court states the importance of finality in legal matters, especially in cases involving significant delays. 
• The court dismissed the curative petitions filed by the Union of India, as they were not based on valid legal grounds and would undermine the principles of finality and res judicata. 
• The court upheld the 1989 settlement, rejecting the Union of India's attempt to reopen the case. The court emphasized the need for finality and the importance of providing immediate relief to the victims. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Ms. X v. Union of India & Othrs.  has held that Copy of Inquiry report must be given to the complainant to comply with the proper procedure under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH). 

What was the Background of MS. X v. Union of India & Othrs. Case?   

• The case involves a female Constable serving in the Border Security Force (BSF) who filed a sexual harassment complaint against a senior officer.  
• Initial Complaint and First Inquiry: 
  • The petitioner (Constable) made a sexual harassment complaint against a BSF officer. 
  • An initial inquiry was conducted under the POSH Act. 
  • This first inquiry resulted in no action, and the accused officer was discharged of all charges. 
• Subsequent Proceedings: 
  • The matter was escalated to the Inspector General. 
  • A General Security Force was constituted to conduct a fresh inquiry. 
  • This time, the inquiry was conducted under the Border Security Force Act, 1968 BSFA) 
• After a detailed investigation, the following punishments were awarded to the accused officer: 
  • 89 days of rigorous imprisonment 
  • Forfeiture of 5 years of service for promotion purposes 
  • Forfeiture of 5 years of past service for pension purposes  
• Post-Punishment Scenario: 
  • The punishments were implemented. 
  • The accused officer did not file an appeal against the order. 
  • The petitioner was dissatisfied with the punishment and felt that proper procedures under the POSH Act were not followed. 
• Aggrieved by the decision the present writ petition is filed before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that:  
  • Procedural Violation 
    • The court noted a clear violation of Section 13(1) of the POSH Act. 
    • The Inquiry Report was not provided to the petitioner, which is mandatorily required to be shared with "concerned parties" 
    • The court considered the petitioner (victim) as a "concerned party" who should have received the report 
  • Punishment Assessment 
    • The court observed that punishment had already been given to the accused employee 
    • The court felt the existing punishment "meets the ends of justice" 
    • No further action was deemed necessary beyond addressing the procedural violation 
  • Penalty for Non-Compliance 
    • The court imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the BSF 
    • This penalty was to be directly given to the petitioner 
    • The penalty was specifically for violating Section 13 of the POSH Act. 
• The Supreme Court did not find need for any additional actions or intervention the existing punishments were considered sufficient 

What is Sexual Harassment at Workplace? 

• Any sort of unwelcome sexual advance, unwelcome request for sexual favors or any other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that makes a person feel offended, humiliated or intimidated can be considered sexual harassment. 

What is Section 13 of the POSH Act? 

This section states about the Inquiry Report.

• Submission of Inquiry Report (Subsection 1) 
  • Reporting Responsible Entities 
    • Internal Committee 
    • Local Committee  
  • Submission Requirements 
    • Submit report of findings to: 
      • Employer 
      • District Officer 
    • Timeframe: Within 10 days of inquiry completion 
    • Mandatory disclosure to all concerned parties 
• Findings and Recommendations (Subsection 2) 
  • Negative Finding Scenario 
    • If allegation against respondent is not proved 
    • Recommendation: No action required 
    • Communicated to: 
      • Employer 
      • District Officer 
• Findings and Recommendations (Subsection 3) 
  • Positive Finding Scenario 
    • If the allegation against respondent is proved. 
    • Recommendations to employer/District Officer: 
      • Disciplinary Action 
        • Take action for sexual harassment as misconduct 
        • Apply service rules applicable to respondent 
        • If no service rules exist, follow prescribed manner 
      • Financial Compensation 
        • Deduct appropriate sum from respondent's salary 
        • Payment to: 
          • Aggrieved woman 
          •  Legal heirs of aggrieved woman 
  • Special Provisions for Compensation 
    • If employer cannot deduct salary due to: 
      • Respondent's absence from duty 
      • Cessation of employment 
      • Alternative: Direct respondent to pay sum 
  • Recovery Mechanism 
    • If respondent fails to pay: 
      • Committee can forward order for recovery 
      • Recovery treated as land revenue arrears 
      • Processed through concerned District Officer 
• Implementation Timeline (Subsection 4) 
  • Employer/District Officer must act on recommendations 
  • Timeframe: Within 60 days of receiving report 

Vishakha Guidelines

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BV Nagrathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh held that where alleged utterances were made in the backyard of the private house it cannot be said that the act was in any place within public view.                   

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha & Anr. 

What was the Background of Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi v. State of Odisha & Anr. Case?  

• The Appellant in this case instituted a criminal complaint under Section 294 and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST (POA) Act). 
• The incident from which the complaint arises occurred in the backyard of the appellant’s house. 
• It is the case of the Appellant that the complainant had trespassed into the backyard along with her employees for plastering her house and she had trespassed into the property of the appellant without seeking any permission the appellant may have uttered the words. 
• The Appellant filed an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for discharge. 
• This application was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge as well as the High Court. 
• Thus, the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court held that if an offence under Section 3 is to be constituted it has to be proved that the words were uttered in any public view as per Section 3 of SC & ST (POA) Act as it stood prior to amendment. 
•  The Court observed that the place of occurrence was the backyard of a private house which cannot be said to be within the public view. 
• Thus, the Court held that in these circumstances it cannot be said that the alleged utterance of the appellant was in any place within public view. 
• Thus, the Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.  

What is SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? 

About the Act: 

• SC/ST Act 1989 is an Act of Parliament enacted to prohibit discrimination against SC & ST communities members and prevent atrocities against them.  
• The Act was passed in Parliament of India on 11th September 1989 and notified on 30 January 1990.  
• The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper castes.  
• The Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities.  

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2015:

• This Act was amended in the year 2015 for the purpose of making the act more stringent with the following provisions:  
  • Recognition was given to more instances of atrocities as crimes against SCs and STs.  
  • It added several new offences in Section 3 and renumbered the entire section since the recognized crime almost doubled.  
  • The Act added Chapter IVA Section 15A (the rights of victims and witnesses), and defined dereliction of duty by officials and accountability mechanisms more precisely.  
  • It provided for the establishment of exclusive special courts and special public prosecutors.  
  • In the context of public servants at all levels this Act defined the term willful negligence.  

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2018:

• In the case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Parliament’s 2018 Amendment to the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The Salient features of this Amendment Act are as follows:  
  • It added Section 18A to the original Act.  
  • It delineates specific crimes against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as atrocities and describes strategies and prescribes punishments to counter these acts.  
  • It identifies what acts constitute “atrocities” and all offences listed in the Act are cognizable. The police can arrest the offender without a warrant and start an investigation into the case without taking any orders from the court.  
  • The Act calls upon all the states to convert an existing sessions court in each district into a Special Court to try cases registered under it and provides for the appointment of Public Prosecutors/Special Public Prosecutors for conducting cases in special courts.  
  • It creates provisions for states to declare areas with high levels of caste violence to be “atrocity-prone” and to appoint qualified officers to monitor and maintain law and order.  
  • It provides for the punishment for willful neglect of duties by non-SC/ST public servants.  
  • It is implemented by the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations, which are provided due central assistance.

What is Section 3 (1) of SC/ST Act?

• Section 3 (1) of the SC/ST Act lays down the following offences:

• It is to be noted that prior to amendment dated 26th January 2016, Section 3 (1) (x) laid down: 
  • The offence involves intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of an SC or ST. 
  • This would be committed by a person who is not SC/ST 
  • The above alleged act must have been committed in some place within the public view. 
  • The offender can face imprisonment for at least six months, up to five years, along with a fine.