Bhopal Gas Case Reopened for Additional Compensation: Revisiting India’s Longest Shadow
- ByAdmin --
- 15 Apr 2025 --
- 0 Comments
Nearly four decades after the catastrophic Bhopal Gas Tragedy—considered the world’s worst industrial disaster—the Supreme Court of India has admitted a curative petition filed by the Union of India, seeking additional compensation from Dow Chemical (the successor of Union Carbide Corporation). The Court’s decision to hear the matter reopens a long-standing legal and moral question: Can justice ever truly expire?
The Bhopal case continues to haunt the Indian legal system—not only for the scale of human and environmental devastation but also for the controversial 1989 settlement that many believe was grossly inadequate.
Background: A Tragedy That Still Breathes
On the night of December 2, 1984, a deadly gas—methyl isocyanate (MIC)—leaked from the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The immediate and long-term consequences were horrific:
- Over 15,000 deaths, by official estimates (some put it over 25,000)
- More than 5 lakh people affected by long-term illness, blindness, birth defects
- Widespread contamination of groundwater, soil, and air still continues
In 1989, the Union of India accepted a settlement of $470 million (approx. ₹715 crore then) from Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Why the Case Is Being Reopened
In January 2023, the Central Government filed a curative petition before the Supreme Court, seeking:
- An additional ₹7,844 crore from Dow Chemical, now the parent company of UCC
- A review of the 1989 settlement, arguing that the scale of damage was underestimated and new medical evidence has emerged
- An acknowledgment that the government underestimated the number of victims and the long-term environmental costs
- The 1989 settlement was presented as final, but the curative petition argues it was based on inadequate data and poor estimation methods.
- Dow acquired UCC in 2001. The petition raises questions of corporate liability and inherited responsibility.
- The SC has invoked Article 142 in rare situations to ensure complete justice, and this case may qualify due to its scale and suffering.
- The 1989 settlement was presented as final, but the curative petition argues it was based on inadequate data and poor estimation methods.
The Supreme Court, after much deliberation, has now agreed to hear the matter in curative jurisdiction, recognizing the extraordinary nature of the petition and the continuing impact on victims.
Key Legal Questions Before the Court
- Can a full and final settlement be reopened decades later?
- Can a successor company like Dow Chemical be held liable?
- Do curative powers under Article 142 allow the Court to redress grave injustice even after final closure?
Arguments by the Union of India
The government has contended that:
- The actual number of claimants is far greater than accounted for in 1989
- The environmental damage caused by chemical seepage into groundwater is ongoing
- Victims continue to suffer without adequate healthcare or rehabilitation
- The settlement amount was a mere fraction of the actual social and medical cost
Dow Chemical’s Position
Dow has consistently argued:
- It is not liable for UCC’s pre-acquisition actions
- The matter was settled legally and finally in 1989
- It has cooperated with Indian authorities, and further claims have no legal basis
Dow has also raised concerns over retroactive application of liability, warning that such action could harm investor confidence.
Victim Advocacy Groups React
Survivors and advocacy organizations such as the Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan have welcomed the Court’s decision to reopen the case. They argue:
- Many victims were left out of the original compensation net
- Long-term health studies reveal multi-generational impact
- Justice delayed doesn’t have to mean justice denied
They also demand criminal accountability and environmental clean-up, beyond monetary compensation.
Legal Significance of the Curative Petition
A curative petition is the last resort in Indian judicial proceedings—available only in cases where gross miscarriage of justice has occurred and all other remedies have been exhausted.
By admitting this petition, the Court has effectively reopened the doors to legal accountability decades after apparent closure.
Implications for Environmental Justice
If the Supreme Court grants the relief:
- It may set a precedent for revisiting past industrial settlements under the lens of long-term damage
- Could reinforce the idea that public health and environmental justice have no statute of limitations
- May push lawmakers to strengthen liability regimes for multinational corporations, including mandatory insurance, clean-up obligations, and inter-generational harm assessments
Justice Revisited, Not Rewritten
The reopening of the Bhopal case is a reminder that some wounds don’t close with time—they fester when left untreated. This is not just a legal battle; it’s a moral reckoning with what we owe the victims of India’s greatest man-made tragedy.
As the Supreme Court prepares to re-examine the ghosts of Bhopal, one thing is clear: justice for the living—and the dead—must not be buried under paperwork and precedent.
RELATED Blog
0 comments