The apathy of successive governments in granting a sacred cow status to Warren Anderson was exposed by a parliamentary panel that examined government assurances to act against Union Carbide chief.
The apathy of successive governments in granting a sacred cow status to Warren Anderson was exposed by a parliamentary panel that examined government assurances to act against the absconding Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) chairman whose alleged negligence killed at least 15,000 people in Bhopal.
In a 93-page report submitted in 2003, the 16-member panel headed by then Telugu Desam MP S Venugopal expressed hope that the Centre, despite the “inexplicable inordinate delay”, would “promptly and adequately bring to book all culprits, including chairman, UCC [Anderson], to ensure the people of this country are convinced that though late, the government has been proving its sincerity in the matter of the worst industrial disaster in history”.
But the stern indictment of the panel and its command to the government to summon Anderson fell on deaf ears as had the concerns raised by lawmakers after the Bhopal disaster in 1984, when the Madhya Pradesh (MP) and Union governments worked in tandem to ensure a safe exit for the then UCC chief.
The irony of the case is that Anderson had, in fact, been arrested, but was released on bail by MP Police in Bhopal on December 7, 1984.
The panel said it was of “the firm opinion” that in a matter of such great industrial disaster involving a foreign company, the MP government could not have taken “a unilateral decision on arrest and release of Anderson”.
Both state and central governments were “equally responsible for this drama of arrest and release”, it said.
“If the intention of the government in releasing Anderson on bail was in good faith, he has belied that faith by ignoring the Bhopal court by not responding to several summons issued to him for appearance”.
As fresh public pressure mounts on the Centre to get Anderson face the trial on the charge of causing hurt due to negligence, the government could have a fresh ground to dillydally on extradition as the Bhopal court is believed to have missed the fact that Anderson too was facing the charge and had been declared a proclaimed offender.
When formalities for his extradition were mooted, he was facing the grave of charge of causing death due to negligence (304-II IPC), but in 1986, then chief justice AM Ahmadi diluted the gravity of the offence to negligence (304-A), under which some Indian executives of UCC were sentenced to two years in jail but let off on bail.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=spacer}
){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}