- (1.) Is the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) constitutionally valid That is the question.
(2.) The Act was passed as a sequel to a grim tragedy. On the night of 2/12/1984 occurred the most tragic industrial disaster in recorded human history in the city of Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh in India. On that night there was massive escape of lethal gas from the MIC storage tank at Bhopal Plant of the Union Carbide (1) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'ucil') resulting in large scale death and untold disaster. A chemical plant owned and operated by UCTL was situated in the north particular manner in particular cases having regard to the particular circumstances. (Para 128) Principles of natural justice are fundamental in the constitutional set up of this country. No man or no mans right should be affected without an opportunity to ventilate his views. Justice is a psychological yearning, m which men seek acceptance of their viewpoint by having an opportunity of vindication of their viewpoint before the forum or the authority enjoined or obliged to take a decision affecting their right. Yet, in the particular situations, one has to bear in mind how an infraction of that should be sought to be removed in accordance with justice. (Para 124) Though on the materials available, the victims would have had to express their views, the victims have not been able to show at all any other point or material which would go to impeach the validity of the settlement. Therefore, though settlement without notice is not quite proper, on the materials so far available, justice has been done to the victims but justice has not appeared to have been done. But in view of the magnitude of the misery involved and the problems in this case, in the facts and the circumstances of this case keeping the settlement inabeyance and giving notice to the victims for a post-decisional hearing would not be in the ultimate interest of justice. Sufficient opportunity being available when review application is heard on notice, as directed by court, no further opportunity is necessary and it cannot be said that injustice has been done. 'to do a great right" after all, it is permissible sometimes "to do a little wrong". In the facts and circumstances of the case, this is one of those rare occasions. Though entering into a settlement without the required notice is wrong, in the facts and the circumstances of this case, to direct that notice should be given now, would not result in doing justice in the situation. In the premises, no further consequential order is necessary by the Supreme court. (Para 124) Per Ranganathan and Ahmadi, JJ. (agreeing) Though prima facie there are good reasons why the settlement should not be set aside on the ground that the principles of natural justice have been violated, quite apart from the practical complications that may arise as the result
(3.) Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) , a highly toxic gas, is an ingredient in the production of both Sevin and Temik. On the night of the tragedy MIC leaked from the plant in substantial quantities. The exact reasons for the circumstances of such leakage have not yet been ascertained or clearly established. The results of the disaster were horrendous. Though no one is yet certain as to how many actually died as the immediate and direct result of the leakage, estimates attribute it to about 3000. 00. Some suffered injuries the effects of which are described as carcinogenic and ontogenic by Ms Indira Jaising, learned counsel; some suffered injuries serious and permanent and some mild and temporary. Livestock was killed, damaged and infected. Businesses were interrupted. Environment was polluted and the ecology affected, flora and fauna disturbed.;