Supreme Court had said compensation for Bhopal victims could be increased in compelling circumstances.
The group of ministers (GoM) on Bhopal may have recommended enhanced compensation to victims of the 1984 gas tragedy, but curative petitions contemplated by the government also aim at making Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) and its successor Dow Chemicals liable for this additional amount.
Legal experts point out that the basis for claiming enhanced compensation from perpetrators of the tragedy is found in the 1989 Supreme Court (SC) judgment that established the contours of the $470 million settlement.
As it transpired, senior lawyer Fali Nariman, appearing for UCC, made an offer of $426 million, whereas then attorney general sought $500 million. After this, SC observed: “Learned counsel for both parties stated that they would leave it to the court to decide what should be the figure of compensation. The range of choice for the court was between the maximum of $426 million offered by Nariman and the minimum of $500 million suggested by the learned attorney general.”
Having arrived at the figure of $470 million as a “compromise”, SC observed: “A settlement has been recorded upon material and in circumstances which persuaded the court that it was a just settlement. This is not to say that this court will shut out any important material and compelling circumstances which might impose the duty on it to exercise the powers of review. Like all other human institutions, this court is human and fallible.”
Then again, the basis on which the compensation figure of $470 million was arrived at —3,000 deaths — had already undergone a change in 1991 when SC upheld the validity of the 1989 settlement. In fact, the number of deaths in February 1989 was 2,660.
Now that GoM has approved a compensation of Rs10 lakh for the kin of the dead, the number of deaths is more than 5,000. There are an additional 10,000 death claims that have been compensated at Rs1 lakh each.
“All these elements would go into the curative petition and we expect that in the light of the original decision accepting the scope for review under compelling circumstances, there would be a favourable outcome,” a senior lawyer said.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}