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.