The Bhopal Gas Disaster

In one line

The worst industrial accident in history produced a special Act giving the Government the exclusive right to sue, a settlement of 470 million dollars, and a judgment restoring the criminal case that had been quashed.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: after the escape of methyl isocyanate gas from the Union Carbide plant at Bhopal in December 1984, Parliament passed the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act 1985 giving the Union Government the exclusive right to represent the victims; its validity was upheld in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India on the doctrine of parens patriae; the claims were settled in February 1989 for 470 million United States dollars and the pending criminal proceedings were quashed; and in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India the Supreme Court upheld the settlement but held that the quashing of the criminal proceedings was not justified and restored them.

What happened

In the night of 2 and 3 December 1984, methyl isocyanate gas escaped from the plant of Union Carbide India Limited at Bhopal. Thousands of people died and many more were injured, and the injuries continued to appear for years. The scale of the disaster made ordinary litigation impossible: the victims were poor, disorganised and largely illiterate, and the defendant was a multinational corporation with its parent abroad.

The statute, and the case that upheld it

Parliament passed the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act 1985, which gave the Union Government the exclusive right to represent every victim in every claim arising out of the disaster, in India and abroad, and to compromise those claims.

Facts. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480, decided on 22 December 1989 by five judges. The constitutional validity of the Act was challenged, principally on the ground that it took away the victims' own right to sue and to be heard.

Held. The Act was upheld. The Court applied the doctrine of parens patriae, the obligation of the State to protect and take into custody the rights of citizens who are unable to protect themselves, and held that the victims of the disaster were exactly such a class. It read into the Act a requirement of notice and an opportunity of being heard for the victims where a settlement is proposed, and held that the State was under an obligation to see that the victims were compensated even if the company could not pay.

Why it matters here. It is the Indian authority on parens patriae, and chapter [Who May Sue] uses it for the proposition that somebody other than the injured person may sue on their behalf.